Outpost of Freedom blog

The Demise of America

Gary Hunt
July 4, 2010 (and the 234th year of our Independence)

 [Note: I would like to acknowledge the assistance of Trey Tasker for review and editing this article.]

Where we began

America!  Just what is America?  Well, for a few centuries, it was the ideal of individual freedom and prosperity.  It was the hallmark of self-government, and it was the ultimate salvation of two major efforts of world conquest.  It was the deciding factor in both world wars, and was the refuge for those oppressed, elsewhere.  It was, for all intents and purposes, a great experiment that had proven itself over all other forms of government and a foundation of moral values, which, un-retarded, had provided a commitment to the rest of the world for aid in achieving similar prosperity, freedom, and moral value.

America is an overreaching name for what is, geographically, just another country in the world of countries, though it was also the name that applied to a Union of countries that had joined, for better, or for worse, to achieve those goals set out by the Founders, some 220 years ago.  America was manifest in the United States of America.  It was and remains that which is otherwise unachievable in other nations of the world.

A thorough study of the history of the United States will demonstrate, to all, that it had, after its inception, surpassed all expectations in establishing itself amongst the nations of the world as a formidable force with which to be reckoned.

Within 36 years of its separation from Great Britain, it had achieved the means of defending itself against the most powerful imperial power in the world.

Within the first century of its existence, it went through a tumultuous period of civil war, though it managed to avoid the separation, or change of government, that would otherwise have been the result of that upheaval.

Within just over a century, it had attained a position of esteemed prominence in the world of industry.

Within 150 years, it had become the economic center of the world whose dollar became the exchange currency most acceptable among the other nations of the world.

Looking back from the challenges of today, the questions that haunt us are:

1.  Has America lost its values — its moral compass — and those many aspects, as set forth by our Founders, that had set it out as a model to the remainder of the world?

2.  Has it outgrown its usefulness both to the people who call themselves Americans, as well as those who look, from afar, and envy that which was?

3.  If so, what has lead to the demise of that image of a better life, or, was it just the imagination of those who proclaimed its nature, for those two hundred years?

Political Correctness

Freedom of Speech is probably the most important and absolutely necessary enumerated right in the Bill of Rights.  The ability to express oneself, both to others and to the government, is fundamental in a country that is composed of self-governed people.

That freedom allows us to express ourselves to others, but also to ourselves.

So, what happened when the means by which we express our thoughts, concerns, ideas, beliefs, and, secrets, is curtailed, by any means, at all?

Let’s look at how this works.  Suppose you have had a religious upbringing, and a morality founded upon that belief.  You understand that heterosexual relationships are the only morally acceptable form of relationship.  You were raised understanding that homosexuals were immoral, and the idea of two people of the same sex having relations together was repugnant.  There was another word, a slang word that was used by most people including homosexuals, which was a reference to that type of relationship.  The word was “queer”, yet it was not necessarily derogatory.  After all, it meant odd, curious, or unexpected.  There is little doubt that the definitions fit, when compared with what was presumed to be the proper moral relationship.

Of course, the term “queer”, being odd, was indicative of someone who was not up to par with the morality and, as such, tended to exclude them from the acceptable norm.

Now, what if there was a concerted effort to abolish the terms queer and homosexual, through a policy of what is known as “political correctness”?  The substitute term would be “gay”, meaning light hearted, brightly colored, or carefree.  Under the social, political, and, in some cases, legal pressure, you succumb to the new phrase for what was considered immoral, not to very long ago.  You accept and use the term.  Over time, your mind follows that implied change in the character and nature of the word, and what used to be unacceptable, or immoral, behavior, has, both in the spoken word, and in your mind, attained a degree of respectability that, without political correctness, would never have been achieved.

Before long, you have adjusted your moral values to accepting what you knew to be unacceptable, though you are not sure just how that change occurred.

Another word that has come into common usage, though is now defined differently than it was, just a few decades ago, is “hate”.  Hate is defined a number of ways, such as, dislike intensively, or a strong distaste.  Often, hate is defined as the opposite of love.

Hate, however, need not have, and in most cases, at least in the past had, no connotation of violence.  Violence stood all by itself.

Recently, however, hate has changed from dislike of liver, or distaste from immoral behavior, to an adjective that is applied to certain crimes of violence, with the intention of providing more serious penalties, under certain conditions, usually unilaterally.  We have accepted this definition so that certain portions of our society are afforded more protection, under the law, than others, regardless of the extent, and, often, regardless of the cause of a violent act.  As a result, we have allowed ourselves to believe that crime perpetrated against some members of our society are worse than the same crime being perpetrated against other members of our society.

In both of the above examples, we have withheld our (freedom of) speech to avoid offending.  As a result, we have managed to allow our minds to be manipulated into accepting things that we clearly knew to be untrue.

By subtle manipulation, we are having our fundamental right of freedom of speech transformed into behavioral manipulation, a form of social engineering, and, consequently, a very serious encroachment upon that sacred right.

Education

A number of advocates promoted public Education, early on in the formation of this country.  Probably the most well known advocate would be Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson has given us many quotations of his belief in the necessity of public education, and each will engender the consideration of the effect of the absence of education upon the morality, prosperity (of the community), politics and the necessity for the people to understand, and then, approve or disapprove that actions of the government.

Public Education, however, predates Jefferson.  In the Cape Cod area, for example, an annual tribute of fish was contributed to pay for the services of a teacher, available to all of the children, as compensation for his services.

However, after the formation of the new country, the United States of America, the promotion of public education was left to the county or other entity, at the local level.  It wasn’t until after the Civil War that the idea really took hold and the literacy rates of the population began to increase.

Very probably, the long war, the destruction of property and lives, was instrumental in the desire to assure that the population could consider all aspects of political decisions, so that their affirmation of the actions of government would be based upon being sufficiently educated so as to be able to properly judge those actions.

The following is from the Department of Commerce data, and reflects the literacy rate (of the white population) from 1860 through 1979.

Year                   White Literacy Rate
1870                   88.5
1880                   90.6
1890                   92.3
1900                   93.8
1910                   95
1920                   96
1930                   97
1940                   98
1947                   98.2
1950                   No data
1952                   98.2
1959                   94.4
1969                   99.3
1979                   99.6

Note that there was a continual progression of literacy from 1870 through 1947.  After the creation of the federal Department of Education, in 1953, we see a shift in education from the Public School System, which had achieved so much, over the previous century, to both federal and state entities.  We also see a shift in the upward rates of literacy.

During this period, we were experiencing a rapid growth in population, what would eventually be style the “Baby Boomers”.  These children, the byproduct of the attitude that prevailed after the victories of World War II, did put an increasing demand upon the educational resources, during that period from 1947 to 1952.  It also removed the traditional, and, demonstrably successful, method of education that had brought us what was later described as the “greatest Generation”, all of whom were educated under the former system of Public Schools.

With the intrusion of the federal government, as well as the state governments, replacing the decision making from the local School Board, whose interest was of the ability to educate the children of their own community, to the centralized, political and bureaucratic control of education, by those quite distant from what the needs, abilities, and resources of the community were, also provided a new means of measuring literacy.

Under the new guidelines for the determination of literacy, as it has evolved to the present time, the schools will teach, primarily, that information which is necessary to pass the competence (literacy) test created to measure the ability of the schools to educate our children.  Any education beyond the purpose of proving competence is secondary.

Arts, science, history, and many other areas of discipline have been subordinated to the effort directed to passing tests in which the answers have become the primary curriculum.

It has become abundantly clear that the average product of the government school system is, functionally, illiterate, though the statistics, revised to prove the efficacy of the centralized control of education, will prove to the contrary.

This deals strictly with education, though it does not deal, at all, with the morality, ideology, history, nature of government and the heritage of this once great nation.  Can we assume that the desired effect of the educational system has been achieved when, for the most part, the educational system has become a tool for government propaganda and the reduction of the average education to one of rote and compliance?

Is it in our best interest to put into the hands of those who would enslave us, the education of our children?  Or, should that responsibility be placed back in our own hands.

Religion

Those who first peopled the shores of America in the early Seventeenth Century were fleeing religious prosecution in Europe.  As they established themselves on those hostile foreign shores, they established equally sectarian societies from those that they had fled.  They were, however, more than willing to share the land with others and only endeavored to impose their religious sanctions on those in their immediate communities.

Originally, they were left alone, by the mother country, and allowed to practice as they saw fit.  Over time, however, the Church of England began imposing the tenets of that Church in many communities, effecting the government of entire colonies.  Other religions were allowed to practice, though all paid tribute to the master Church.

A turning point came in the late Eighteenth Century when the ties that had held the colonies to their mother, England, were severed.  The mother Church was allowed to continue, though it was relegated to the same authority as all of the other churches in the country.

Though all religions were allowed to be practiced, even Mohametism, the moral values of the country were firmly established in the Judeo-Christian ethic.  It was the foundation of the laws, the spirit and the prosperity that flowed from the people to make America a symbol of good and righteousness to the world.

It was the moral values that flowed from that religious source that inspired the courage, strength, and commitment, to enter two world wars, which tipped the balance of power and allowed the defensive powers to prevail against the aggressors.

America has, through its entire history, recognized the role of God in its foundations, establishments, and history.  Religious quotations are inscribed on most of the government, both state and federal, buildings built in its first two centuries.  Moses and the Ten Commandments are prominently displayed, many times, on the Supreme Court Building.  Prayers open every session of Congress and our currency bears a prominent “In God We Trust”.

More recently, however, those religious virtues have fallen to evil forces that are endeavoring to undermine the moral values and principles upon which that nation was founded.  And, it is coming from an area least expected.  It is coming through education — academia, and being fed to that country’s posterity, without the consent of the parents, and, as insidiously as if the Church of England were back in control of education, morality, and law.

Of course, it is couched in an innocuous term, evolution.  The term, however, permeates that society on levels that most have never even considered.  In ‘public’ schools, which used to utilize the Bible as a means of teaching reading, and, following the example of Congress, opened each school day with prayer.

In 1852, a forty-one year old Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species”.  It was, then, a theory put forth by Darwin that all life evolved from a single cell, which was formed by an accident.  Of course, Darwin knew nothing of DNA, or he may have reconsidered the complexity of a single cell — and its chance of creation.

Today, however, this “theory” has had no advancement, yet it is espoused by the academic community, the scientific community, and the courts (who no longer provide a Bible for swearing in).  They accept the “theory” of evolution over the accepted principle of creation, which now, in deference to the campaign against it, goes by the name of “Intelligent Design”.

The proponents of evolution call intelligent design a theory.  They claim that it is unsubstantiated and that no proof exists supporting the existence of God.  They advance their theories on the foundation of scientific proof that evolution is the means by which life, and man, came into being.  They have, through massive campaigns, removed that which was, Creationism, from the classroom, from the government (where it had comfortably resided for two centuries) and the search for the source of life, science.

The Evolutionists can best explain the effect, especially in the classroom, themselves.  Most will proclaim that they did once believe in God and were raised religiously, though upon their study of evolution, they determined that there is no God, so they became atheists.  Though, perhaps, not scientifically provable, they have laid claim to the proof of the lack of the existence of God to be a direct result of their studies.

They have created, by academic denial for those who believe in Intelligent Design, through establishing curriculum absent any mention of Intelligent Design, through refusal to consider Intelligent Design in any scientific research, and by pursuing legislative restriction on the discussion of Intelligent Design, an environment which is void of such teaching, or even the consideration of Intelligent Design, voiding the minds of our youth of any consideration of those sources of Providence to which the people, and this nation, owe so much.

Absent religion, which provides a moral foundation, we can expect that morality will become as individualistic and varied as the number of people in that country.  Situational ethics — doing what feels right — is becoming the morality of America, and, though not scientific, by any means, is best demonstrated by the very obvious changes in morality (out of wedlock birth rates, divorce, homosexuality, pedophilia, etc.) in recent decades.

The decline in morality and virtue is indicative of the failure of a society.  It loses its moral fiber that binds people together, its commonality, and its very binding sprit, which will, eventually, lead to its demise.

The final point to be made, here, is that the government has chosen to dictate what cannot be said from the pulpit, which has had sufficient impact upon the preaching of immorality.

Immigration

Immigration can be one of many lifebloods of a nation.  In the case of the United States, that lifeblood began flowing more than 350 years before the birth of that nation.  Immigrants from Europe came for many reasons, though most commonly, to practice their Christian faith, without obedience to a state/church government.  This Freedom of Religion, though restricted by community, was not restrictive to the practice of religion, as each saw fit.

Through those first few hundred years, the Anglican Church, from England, held absolute sway, in some of the colonies.  Other religions may have been allowed, by tithes (taxes) were paid to the Anglican Church for distribution only to the Anglican churches.

After the founding of the United States, religious freedom was guaranteed to all, and embodied in the Bill of Rights.  For those, then, and their posterity, the freedom of religion (absence of laws restricting the practice of religion) became assured for generations to come.

Time, however, and the lust for power in government (fear of opposition) generated a subtle change that would begin to diminish this significant right (birthright) of Americans.

It began with the simple gift of tax-exemption for churches.  With the imposition of taxes, which are questioned by many as even being constitutional, any organization requesting exemption from those taxes must file with the government claiming status as a religious, not for profit, corporation.

This, by itself, had no effect on the ability of the church to preach sermons that might favor a candidate, or a policy.  But, over time, those who controlled the purse strings wrote into the laws that the churches, in order to maintain their tax exemption, could not support candidates or policies, unless the government turned their back.  This meant that preaching could include support for anything that the government wanted, but excluded any sermon that would undermine the authority of government, by removing that exemption.

Churches were left to abandon any sermon, regardless of how well founded in scripture that was in opposition to government policy.  Morality had become subject to the approval of the government.  Consequently, church corporations began voting, by whatever form that had chosen, to abandon doctrines that were fundamental to their scriptures.

Few, however, have been willing to challenge the illegitimacy of such incursions into the practice of religion, though most of them are fully aware that sermons preached within the laws of the time (under British rule) offered no such limitation on the exercise of religion.

With banner held high, “Freedom of Religion”, we continue to accept that government is, as required by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, protecting that fundamental element of a person, and a nation’s, morality.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing and other industries were major elements in achieving prosperity, and attaining the recognition as the greatest industrial power on the earth.

In the Nineteenth Century, the availability of natural resources; open land; desire for expansion and settlement of those open lands; and the free market (uncontrolled by government) became the means by which that prosperity was achieved.

Industry was able to find a market place for its goods.  The availability of resources was unlimited, allowing for rates of production to meet demands.  Absence of governmental involvement gave a free hand for the free market to develop plants, seek new markets, and innovate new products, beyond anything the world had beheld before.  Tens of thousands of miles of railroad connected the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific Ocean and Canada to Mexico.  Each new mile added additional resources, land for settlement, and profit, which returned to expand the network, even further.

Innovation created new machinery for harvesting of crops, reducing manpower, and increasing productivity in the bread belt, thereby providing more than ample supplies of food to the growing nation.

Innovation also developed new methods of manufacturing, which would continue to lead the way in production, for decades to come.

At the beginning of the Twentieth Century, war encompassed the world.  The geographic isolation allowed product supplies to be increased to meet the demands of wartime goods.  Though our participation in WWI was not immediate, eventually, the spirit, ingenuity, and individualism that had lead to that prosperity provided an American fighting force that turned the tide of that war.

Just a few decades later, another war encompassed the world.  The productivity of that industrial giant was able to produce goods, and transport them across the seas, at a rate that was unachievable by all of the other countries, individually AND combined.  Once again, the American fighting force was the turning point in the war.

The demands of this second war had produced production lines incomparable to anything that preceded it.  Plants that produced toys were converted to the manufacture of weapons, within weeks.  Means were developed to adapt to any demand, and the production facilities went undamaged by war, providing a prosperity, post-war, that was later defined as the American Dream.

To this point in time, a philosophy of “A Good Product at a Fair Price” was the motivation, both in and out of war, to produce.  America was second to none in industry, and more than willing to share its knowledge and resources to rebuild the damaged countries resulting from that war — even the enemy’s country were rebuilt and their industry re-established, mostly along the lines of what America hand learned in the century preceding.

About this time, and in order to aid another country’s recovery, a practice of contracting foreign industry to produce certain goods lead to the denigration of a product by referencing the country or origin, “Made in Japan”.  These products, for the most part, were low profit, easily made, and required little technical ability to produce.

Over the next few decades, Industry continued to prosper, however, the philosophy shifted from “A Good Product…” to what became known as “the bottom line” mentality.

As a consequence, many of the industrial machines were produced, under contract to foreign nations, and then returned to the United States bearing the name of a United States corporation.  The same foreign manufactures also manufactured the same products for sale through different distribution systems, bearing their name, even though the products were otherwise identical.

Most of the raw materials (natural resources) to manufacture these products were mined in the United States, transported across Canada to Pacific ports, shipped overseas in foreign vessels, processed, manufactured to finished products, and then returned to the United States on foreign vessels.  Amazingly, these products would be for sale at less cost than they could be manufactured here.

One of the reasons for this gross disparity in cost of production was the proliferation of unions, demanding higher wages, more benefits, and job security, and, often, limiting production rates to ease the burden on the worker.

The government, by the end of World War II, legislated in favor of these unions, without regard to the consequences, and by venturing where the Constitution did not authorize them to go.

This fueled the fires of profit, at any cost, to the point that became destructive to American industry.  Quite the opposite of “protective tariffs”, the new course was actually beneficial both by support of unions and reduction of tariffs (e.g. Most Favored Nation status), resulting in the decimation of American industry.

Currently, less than 10% of the manufactured goods in the marketplace are made in this country, though they may well bear American names, such as Ford, General Electric, and Motorola.

Absent foreign imports, whether with, or without American names, our lives would approach third world status, unable to obtain goods for everyday household chores, workplace tools, and even industrial equipment.  Even obscure countries produce more for their own consumption than does America.

In less than one hundred years, we have gone from the apex of industry to a country almost void of industrial production.  We have become dependent for our daily lives upon those who may, at some time in the future, become our enemies.

Dependency

Dependency, by its very nature, makes one subordinate to that upon which it depends.  Children are dependent upon their parents, until they have reached an age and the competence in which they can depend upon themselves — independence.

Employees are dependent on their employers to provide both the wages that they earned, and a marketplace for the product that they provide, so that money is available for such wages.  Employers, in turn, are dependent upon the performance of their employees to provide quality products and services.

Governments are dependent upon their citizens to provide the guidance (by whatever means the construction of the government is based upon), and for revenue (again, based upon those means provided) for the operation of that government.

In turn, the citizens of a nation are dependent upon the government (in the case of the United States) for the protection of life, liberty, and property.

What happens when the government — the society — for which it is obliged to provide the means to protect, becomes dependent upon another government, or country, to assure that the means of daily living can be obtained in order for that society to survive?

If the government, for any reason, especially after having fully demonstrated that these means are readily available within the country, legislates in such a manner as to reduce, or even remove, those means, requiring that the society is now dependent upon another country for its daily means, has it transferred the primary responsibility for its citizens to another country — and government?

Has it, by these means, dissolved its entire purpose — in subordination to foreign interests?

Is it possible that the country which has relied upon its government to secure those means, by abrogating its responsibility, has destroyed the government and relegated its citizens to the mercy of the whims of another country?

We remain fully capable of providing some aspects of life, such as medicine, weapons of war and destruction, and a relentless line of politicians more than willing to reduce us, even further, into dependency upon others.

Catastrophic is an understatement of the effect, both short and long term that this transfer of dependence will have upon us.

Tradition

Every nation in the world is steeped in tradition.  Those traditions, whether good or bad in the eyes of outsiders, are a binding force in that nation’s culture and are necessary so that the longevity, coherence, and perpetuation of that culture to continue.  Absent that background, it is nothing less than a new nation without a foundation, course, or future.

The longstanding traditions of the United States have come under attack, recently, undermining the very fabric of that nation granted, by Providence (yes, that is a substantial part of the tradition), to the people who settled, then fought for the existence of it.

As the traditions are eroded away, under whatever guise might be undertaken to supplant them, so, too, is the personality, the character, the entire embodiment, of that nation.

When those traditions are eroded using the guise of the Founding papers, the Constitution, as an excuse for their erosion, the complacency of those who merely stand by and watch becomes as much of the destructive force as those who, by intent, are striving for the destruction of that nation.

Regardless of the ambitions of the latter, or the absence of objection by the former, the effect is the same.  They both allow a transition of government, as much as if conquered buy military force, though the means are far more subtle.  The intention is the same, and the result is as effective as the alternative.

Taxation

Though only a small part of what lead to the Revolutionary War, taxes, as they have through history, have become the means by which people are most often oppressed.

The French-Indian Wars had taken an economic toll on England.  Generally, the coffers of government are maintained, absent war, by a relatively small tax, intended to replace the debt incurred by war.  This was the case with the Stamp Act, in 1765.  In order to replenish the treasury, taxes were laid on the colonies.  This, along with the removal of charter government (See The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence) incited sufficient concern in the colonists to begin down the pathway that, eventually, lead to separation from England.

The intention, as had been the practice, even under British rule, was to restore the Treasury and then to remove the taxes, with the need for replenishment no longer being necessary.

That practice served America quite well, during its first nearly two centuries.  The taxes imposed during World War II were in the single digit percentages, and the tax that had been imposed was, originally, imposed only for the duration of the war.

Instead, and by the time the America attempted to accomplish, in Vietnam, what the French had failed to achieve, the government had raised taxes, and they had become a way of life.  Twenty percent of income, or more, was the norm, nearly seven times greater, on all income, than the 3% taxes, only on certain items, that had roused the anger of the colonists.

Government had determined that they could maintain near perpetual war, if they were able to provide a constant and permanent flow of revenue, never allowing the coffers to be depleted.

Their President, Dwight Eisenhower, in 1961, in his Farewell Address, provided insight into what he had seen as a threat to the future of America, when he said, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.  The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”

He realized that the “economic favors” bestowed upon those who made weapons of war, by the government who benefited, in one way or another, from perpetual war, was a danger to what our country stood for.

Leadership

The leadership in this country is recognized by that title, but have you considered what the word means?

Leaders are those who lead.  Just how do they achieve such significance that would warrant our following them?

Back in the late seventeen and early eighteen hundreds, there were many who had achieved their positions of leadership through demonstration of their ability to lead, and thereby justify our willingness to follow them.

Over the years, however, things have changed.  Now, the people that we are to follow come from a degree of obscurity.  Their respective parties, somewhere along the line, have decided that they have ‘achieved’ such prominence that they can be cast forth as leaders.  But, what criteria are used to determine that they have demonstrated their ability to lead?

Consider, if you will, that for them to garner the support of the party, they will have had to assure that the party is well satisfied with, well, their obedience to the party.  Let us take the current president of the United States.  He was obscure.  A senator from Illinois, who was nothing more than a yes man for the party.  Virtually all of his votes were on the party line, though he had something going for him:  the party, already satisfied with his obedience, determined that they could promote some aspects for their chosen candidate and convince the voters throughout the country that this man was worthy of the role of leader.  Nothing to demonstrate that he could, it is simply a matter of selling their candidate to the public.  This is accomplished by taking polls; analysis of the results; developing marketing strategies, not unlike those used to sell cereal or drugs; and, determining what people want to hear, in each region of the country, and assuring that their candidate says, in that region, what they have told him to say, in that region, and, likewise, in the other regions.  If you should have any doubts, recall what the candidates have said in the past, such as, “Read my lips, no New Taxes”, or, “I will have a transparent government.”

In the end, better leaders can probably be found by looking in your local community rather than looking at the television, which will bring you exactly what you want to see.

Government is designed to serve the people.  Understanding that it is impractical, and imprudent, for everybody to be involved in every decision required to be made at the top level of government, we have developed a system whereby the will of the people, through their chosen representatives, is made so, on the people’s behalf.

If you would, imagine an inverted triangle.  The base, being at the top, constitutes the people.  Below them are the representatives of the people, and at the very bottom, the point of the inverted triangle, is the President of the United States.  His purpose, according to the Constitution, is the chief executive of the country.  His job, then, is to carry out the will of the people (top of the triangle), as expressed through their representatives (middle of the triangle).  He is the lowest man on the triangle, and his job is to work for us, on our behalf.

For whatever reason, perhaps an inadequacy in the educational system, we have learned to accept the triangle in the wrong configuration.  We have allowed that the President is at the top of the triangle, master of all.  Below him is the Congress, our representatives, making decisions that are both contrary to, and against our will.  Finally, at the bottom, are we, the people, who find ourselves forced into obedience to the government, and, paying all the bills that they can accumulate, while attempting to tell us that what they are doing is in our best interest?

Where does this leave us?

Through a slow and meticulous process, events that are hardly noticed begin to have an effect on the people, and the future, by that same process, is modified in such a way that the people who have thought that they knew what freedom was, eventually, find that they are no longer free, nor are they what they thought that they were.

Those in control will exert their efforts to the point that a substantial majority will accept the conditions that they have imposed.

In time, the acceptability of what has been imposed, through these subtle means, becomes even more accepted, if not in years, in a decades or two, that which was, will be lost among the pages of history.  The newly accepted condition becomes the platform for the next generation of change, which, ultimately, will result in that which the United States was to be lost, and that which it has become to be accepted as that which always was.

When unlawful force or influence are used to undermine the obligations of government, the people subject to that government, are also slaves to that government.

This, unless we accept our responsibility of restoring that which was, will result in the Demise of America.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

Those who find this interesting might also appreciate Finding Freedom Again

.

.

The Three Boxes

Gary Hunt
May 29, 2010

Often we have heard mention of the three boxes, which are the elements of our steps of assurance of the adequacy of our government.  The first box, of course, is the ballot box.  That box allows us the choice of representation of those who will enter the government, on our behalf, to assure that the government legislates within the confines of the Constitution, and to serve the purpose for which that government was created (protection of Life, Liberty and Property — see Finding Freedom Again and Let’s Talk About the Constitution).

Next, of course, is the jury box.  This box was deemed by the Founders as the ultimate arbiter on the validity of any law.  The determination of both fact and law (whether a law was just, constitutional, and the will of the people) was inherent in this process.  The ability of the jury to overturn laws inadequate to the purposes of the people has a long history from colonial times to early in the last century.

In 1732, John Peter Zenger was tried for seditious libel.  The jury overturned the law that suppressed speaking out against government.

In 1857, the Supreme Court ruled that fugitive slaves had to be returned to their owners, if found.  Juries refused to convict those who violated that law, which was eventually partially overturned by the same court, and ruled out by the 14th Amendment.

Most recently, during the era of Prohibition (the 18th Amendment, ratified in 1920 through the repeal of Prohibition by the 21st Amendment in 1933), may who were tried for possessing alcohol, or other violations of the Volstead Act were acquitted by juries, who perceived the law as a denial of liberty.

Other instances can be cited, but it is clear that the right of the jury to nullify laws is as much a part of our heritage as the right to jury trial.

The final box, of course, is the cartridge box.  This was the final resort of the Founders when the other remedies had failed to impede the encroachments of government, toward despotic and tyrannical rule.  This box, if you will, is the box of last resort.

So, let us look at the efficacy of the ballot box.  In so doing, we will only look at the election of representatives, though the Electoral College has been tailored into something that only vaguely resembles that which the Founders gave us.

The Ballot Box

George Washington, in a letter to Timothy Pickering, Jul. 27, 1795, provides the following insight into the nature of parties in the legislative branch:

“Much indeed to be regretted, party disputes are now carried to such a length, and truth is so enveloped in mist and false representation, that it is extremely difficult to know through what channel to seek it.  This difficulty to one, who is of no party, and whose sole wish is to pursue with undeviating steps a path which would lead this country to respectability, wealth, and happiness, is exceedingly to be lamented.  But such, for wise purposes, it is presumed, is the turbulence of human passions in party disputes, when victory more than truth is the palm contended for.

We must understand that in Washington’s time, parties were simply associations of like-minded people.  Party had a degree of sway, though it was not so dictatorial that it could decide who would run for office, and who would not.

What we have become, however, is subject to exclusive domination, in the political arena, to the two-party system.

Ex-President Harry Truman, on the event of his birthday, in 1954, gave us the following:

“In the first place, the President became the leader of a political party.  The party under his leadership had to be dominant enough to put him in office.  This political party leadership was the last thing the Constitution contemplated.  The President’s election was not intended to be mixed up in the hurly-burly of partisan politics.

“I wish some of those old gentlemen could come back and see how it worked.  The people were to choose wise and respected men who would meet in clam seclusion and choose a President and the runner-up would be Vice President.

“All of this went by the board-though most of the original language remains in the Constitution.  Out of the struggle and tumult of the political arena a new and different President emerged-the man who led a political party to victory and retained in his hand the power of party leadership.  That is, he retained it, like the sword Excalibur, if he could wrest it from the scabbard and wield it.

So, what has happened is that the two-party system has enacted laws that have allowed the party, not the President, though he is the leader of the party, to determine that course that our country will take.

Similarly, all those within the party must subordinate whatever ideals they may have possessed upon their entry into politics to the will of the party, itself.  This end has been achieved through manipulation of the process of election by two primary methods.

First, to run on the party ticket, one must have the blessings of the party.  Absent that blessing, or in the event that a term in office demonstrates disobedience to the will of the party, the candidate cannot find a place on the ballot.  He might, if he has attained stature in the eyes of the people, run as an independent, or he may even change party allegiance.  Absent one of the two, he will find the possibility of inclusion on the ballot, and election to office, remote.

Second, and as we all know, now, dollars equate to votes.  When a candidate has the dollars behind him, he has far greater potential for election than one who does not.  Now, if all things were equal, a potentially good candidate running for office outside of the party banner might well solicit donations that would provide a fair chance against a party candidate.  Unfortunately, for both for the candidate outside of the party and the people, the party will contribute funds, and, by other means, provide advertisement intended to sway the outcome of the election, thus providing an unfair advantage to their ‘chosen’.

So, it is clear that the two-party system has devised means to minimize competition and assure the election of one of the chosen of one of the parties.  This assures the voter that he will have a very slim chance, if any at all, to elect a candidate who will adhere to the Constitution, regardless of what promises have been made during campaign.

For all intents and purposes (“Read my lips, no new taxes”).  We are given the choice of two liars.  We will take the liar who is a candidate from the party that we have laid our hopes and dreams on, or, in some cases, the opposition.  In the former instance, we have elected “our own liars”, in the latter; we have elected the better liar.  In either eventuality, we may rest assured that the campaign promises made during the campaign were made only to solicit our vote.  They, in no way, are indicative of promises to pursue the ends described.  In fact, more than likely, they will not even be remembered, shortly after the election.

These aside, let’s look at what would happen if we were able to have a choice that included those who really intended to pursue a return to Constitutional government.  Being overly optimistic, let us assume that we could elect, in each session of Congress, 10% candidates who have our goals in common and would not succumb to political pressure while serving us.

In the next five elections (2010-2018), assuming that there were no losses, deaths or conversions, we would have 50% of those in office truly in support of the people rather than their respective parties.  With only a single vote more, we would have the ability to mandate the course of the country, though only on those matters which could be passed by a simple majority.  There are both two-thirds and three-quarters majority requirements on some matters.  These, respectively, would require four and eight more years to return control from the parties to the people.

At that point in time we could begin turning the tide and returning to Constitutional government.

How long, however, will it take to make that return?  We will have the 8 (or 12, or 16) intervening years of additionally burdensome legislation to undo, and then we could take on the task of undoing the past few decades of abuse of government.

If feasible, as presented above, it would be wholly dependent upon whether we could overcome the party politics and maintain the optimistic goal, as outlined.  Any deficiency in that progression simply compounds the problem, which, if not almost beyond redemption, now, most surely will be so with any delays in the above-proposed timeline.  [Note: the above does not even take into consideration the effect of lobbyists in promoting the interests of “special-interest” groups.]

This nearly fatal scenario, then, leads us to the Second Box.

The Jury Box

The Grand Jury and the Petit Jury have centuries of record which demonstrate their purpose and the means by which they serve the people.

First, let us see what Lysander Spooner said about the Petit jury, in an essay, “on the Trial By Jury” (1852):

“FOR more than six hundred years that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Then, as far as the Grand Jury, here is what George Edwards, Jr., said in a law review essay (“Grand Juries”) in 1906:

“The grand jury is an institution of English-speaking countries, of historic interest by reason of the obscurity surrounding its origin, its gradual development, and the part it has played in some of the most stirring events in the history of the Anglo-Saxon race; of political interest by its effectual protection of the liberty of the subject from the arbitrary power of the government; of legal interest in that its power and action is utterly repugnant to “the experience and theory of English law.” It has been extravagantly praised as the “security of Englishmen’s lives,” the conserver of his liberties, and the noblest check upon the malice and oppression of individuals and states…

So, now that we understand what was intended when the Founders passed on these examples of centuries of pursuing justice, by our forefathers, as an assurance against the tendency of those with power to extend their power and reduce the people to subordination to the will of government, let us look at what has happened to these institutions that were intended to provide such security.

The Grand Jury was intended to look in two directions.  First, it was to assure that no person would be held to answer (stand trial) unless there were sufficient reason to believe that he may have committed a crime (probable cause).  Second, it was intended to be a check on government, for those in power were no less capable of committing crimes than the people, and, without the ability to hold those in power accountable, would allow government to transgress on the rights of the people, without any obstacle to forcing complete submission.

Once probable cause was determined, the charges warranted a trial, by peers, to determine if, weighing all of the evidence, a crime had been committed, and, if the law was just.  This jury was in no way excluded from judging those in power.  The most well known example was the trial of those soldiers involved in shooting, and killing, civilians in the infamous “Boston Massacre” (1770).

So, we have a two tiered box in which charges can be brought only by the Grand Jury, in accordance with the Constitution (Fifth Amendment):

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.

This, however, has been subordinated to the current circumstance, that only a district, state, or, US attorney can bring charges against you, with or without a grand jury, and, since they have, contrary to original law, intent and tradition, you cannot present to the Grand Jury a perceived violation of the law by a member of the government, unless, the government, through its attorney, allows such charges to be presented to the Grand Jury.

Once charges are justified (and, in our tradition of law, along with the intent of the Founders, that should include those who work for the government), the trial of the charges is held (as set out in Article II, Section 2, clause 3, and, 6th Amendment, for criminal trials, and the 7th Amendment for Civil trials) by Petit Juries.

As was presented at the beginning of this article, Petit Juries are, by tradition of law and intent of the Founders, judges of both law and fact.  What has happened to Petit Juries, by virtue of enactments by government and rules promulgated by administrative agencies (see Who Makes the Laws?), is that the judge has become the sole arbiter of the case.  He provides instructions to the jury that are ironclad, and assure conviction, rather than allowing the discretion the Jury is supposed to posses, in determining guilt, and the judge absolutely denies the right of the Jury to judge law (as happened to Laura Kriho when she was jailed for holding to her beliefs with regard to the crime, and, punishment associated therewith, while serving on jury duty).

So, the question arises, is there any efficacy to the jury system (box), as intended by the Founders, to be one of our safeguards against an oppressive government, or has the government-usurped authority, which it was never intended to have?

You may also wonder why the supreme Court rules in what appears, quite often, to be contrary to the Constitution, though you may be surprised when you read what that Court has said about making such rulings, as explained in About Ashwander v. TVA.

This, then, leads us to a consideration of that third box, the cartridge box.

The Cartridge Box

As we have seen, and should be quite evident, by now, the government has, by divisive means, corrupted both the Ballot Box and the Jury Box as remedies in safeguarding our freedom,  our Constitution and our way of life.

Can we assume that this third box, that box of last resort, can go unimpaired by the powers that have, so far, managed to make inconsequential the other two?

Let’s begin by looking at what was, some 230 years ago.  Though few were made here, cannon could be bought on the open market, by anyone.  Any weapon available to the military was also available to the citizen.

Over time, however, primarily after the Civil War, the government began “infringing” upon our right to keep and bear arms.  There is no doubt that after the Civil War, they did not want private citizens to own cannon.  The recent carnage and destruction of the just finished war was sufficient, though the government had the additional leverage of near complete domination over the southern states, to begin to restrict ownership of those weapons of war, which were, to that point in time, considered well within the right to keep and bear arms.

In the 1930s, because of the warring between government and anti-prohibition forces (organized crime), laws were passed restricting ownership of automatic rifles (machine guns).  More recently, in the 1990s, prohibition against what the government refers to as “assault rifles” has taken an additional toll on that right which was not to be infringed upon.

Clearly, then, the assault on that final right, that protector of all rights, the Second Amendment, being so necessary to a Free State, is without doubt, being subordinated to the power of government.

It, too, will go the way of the Ballot Box for the election of “representatives of our own chusing”, in favor of selection of the lesser of two evils, laid before us by the two-party system, which now confronts us.

It, too, will go the way of the Jury Box, where the rights that were fought for, and preserved in the Constitution, have become far less than would have been acceptable to those who gave their lives to “secure the blessings of liberty”, by subordination to the government in all aspects of judicial administration.

If we squander our time, hoping that the Cartridge Box will always be available, should the need arise (if it hasn’t, already), we can, most assuredly, understand that absent our commitment to the recovery of those long and established rights, and, the return to Constitutional government, we can only look forward to one more box — made of pine.

 A Problem that Can’t be Ignored

Gary Hunt
November 17, 2009

 One of our greater presidents, immortalized on Mount Rushmore, had some sage advice that he gave to us, 92 years ago. For decades, our immigration policy tended toward what he had so wisely suggested.

Then, in the eighties, the Congress, wishing to secure their own future rather than that of the nation, began granting amnesty to illegal immigrants, and lowering the barrier for immigrants to enter the country.

Had we continued to heed his advice, our policy would not be directed to open borders and an ever expanding flow of illegal immigrants, criminals and Jihadists into this country, and, likely, many of those who have immigrated legally, under the two decade old reduction of consideration for our welfare and culture, would still be where they belonged, in their own country.

To put the following in perspective, Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States (1901-1909), He was replaced by William Howard Taft.  President Woodrow Wilson was elected in 1913, just a year prior to the beginning of World War I.  In 1915, a British ship, the Lusitania, was sunk with 128 Americans on board.  Wilson refused to enter the war, saying, “America is too proud to fight”.  Finally, on April 6, 1917, Wilson asked the Congress to Declare war.  Soldiers began arriving in Europe in the summer of 1918. This was written between the Declaration of War and the entry of United States troops into the hostilities.

This is Chapter III from the book, “The Foes of Our Own Household”. I have removed portions of the original, though the entire chapter can be found at: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/childrenofthecrucible.htm.

It is important to recognize that War had been Declared by the United States Congress. It was, unfortunately, a task that had to be taken on during the conflict, because foresight wasn’t applied to immigration and assimilation before the war began.

During World War II, the Japanese, as a whole, and many Italians and Germans, with specific cause, were interred in isolation camps. This probably would not have been a concern (as the willingness of many Japanese to fight on the American side proved; and, as the minimal problem of German and Italians who were not interred, also supports), if assimilation had been a major focus of immigration laws.

It is important to understand the necessity of assimilation (1. act of becoming part of something: the process of becoming part of or more like something greater 2. integration into group: the process in which one group takes on the cultural and other traits of a larger group of immigrants — from Encarta) into the American culture. This doesn’t preclude immigrants having pride in where they come from, nor does it mean that they cannot continue to practice elements of their heritage and culture, so long as the recognize that they came here to be Americans, and that their allegiance and primary focus should be on that fact.

From The Foes of Our Own Household:

Chapter III

The Children of the Crucible

We Americans are the children of the crucible.  The crucible does not do its work unless it turns out those cast into it in one national mould; and that must be the mould established by Washington and his fellows when they made us into a nation.  We must be Americans; and nothing else.  Yet the events of the past three years bring us face to f ace with the question whether in the present century we are to continue as a separate nation at all or whether we are to become merely a huge polyglot boarding house and counting house, in which dollar hunters of twenty different nationalities scramble for gain, while each really pays his soul-allegiance to some foreign power.

We are now at war with Germany.  For three years Germany has heaped insult upon insult, injury upon injury, on our people.  We showed a reluctance passing the bounds of ordinary timidity either to resent the insults or to prepare for defense.  We feared to resent wrong in the present.  We did not even dare to prepare so as to be able effectively to resent wrong in the future.  Our supine inaction was partly due to the folly engendered in our people by the professional pacifists.  But an even more important factor was the dread many of our politicians felt not merely of the German Army abroad but of German votes at home.  The cold, greedy selfishness and short-sightedness of our political leaders were indefensible; and were due to the fact that the men who took the lead in the professional German-American movement sought entirely to subordinate the actions of the country of which they were nominally citizens, the United States, to the needs of the country for which they really cared, Germany.

Now we are at open war with Germany; yet many of these persons ‑ supported of course by the professional pacifists ‑ continue to champion Germany’s cause as against the cause for which we are fighting.  This is moral treason to the Republic, and all who engage in it, whether senators, congressmen, editors, or professed humanitarians, are in fact, although not in law, traitors, who have no right longer to be treated as American citizens.  The time has come to insist that they now drop their dual allegiance, and in good faith become outright Germans or outright Americans.  They cannot be both; and those who pretend that they are both, are merely Germans who hypocritically pretend to be Americans in order to serve Germany and damage America.  At the moment, the vital thing to remember about these half-hidden traitors is that to attack America’s allies, while we are at death grips with a peculiarly ruthless and brutal foe, or to champion that foe as against our allies, or to apologize for that foe’s infamous wrong‑doing, or to clamor for an early and inconclusive peace, is to be false to the cause of liberty and to the United States.’

In this war, either a man is a good American, and therefore is against Germany, and in favor of the allies of America, or he is not an American at all, and should be sent back to Germany where he belongs.  There are no stauncher Americans in the country than the average Americans who are in whole or in part of German descent; and all these are as stanchly against Germany now as the Americans of English descent were against Great Britain in 1776, I speak of them with knowledge; for German blood runs in my own veins.  But the American of German descent who remains a German or a half-German is not an American at all; and a large number of the men of this type are dangerous traitors who ought instantly to be sent out of the country.  These men work steadily against America in the company of the native-American professional pacifists, and the pro-German Socialists, and all the anti-English foreigners.  Some of these pro-German and anti-American leaders have been advocating that men of German descent should not be required to serve in our armies against Germany.  This is precisely as if in the Revolutionary War it had been proposed that men of English descent should not serve against England.  Such a proposal should be regarded as treasonable, and all men making it should be treated accordingly.

Many of these German sympathizers, of these foes of the United States (including not only men of German descent but men of Irish descent whose blind hatred of England makes them disloyal to America, and men of native origin, who are conscienceless politicians or who are. pacifists or denationalized and therefore thoroughly unpatriotic) fear openly to assail our country; and therefore they serve our country’s enemies effectively by assailing England, by endeavoring to keep us from effective cooperation with the allies, or by condoning and defending such acts of barbarity as the Zeppelin raids on English cities and the murderous assaults on ships crowded with innocent non-combatants.

In the Revolutionary War France was our ally.  Fifteen years before she had been our bitter enemy.  Therefore certain Tories endeavored to harm the American cause by reviving the old anti-French animosities.  They acted precisely as the men act who to-day seek to harm the United States and help our ruthless and bitter enemy, Germany, by reviving the old anti-British enmity.  Any man who during the Revolution stated that although he favored the United States against England nevertheless he also favored England against France, was really a traitor to America.  Any man who now announces that although he favors the United States against Germany yet he favors Germany against England is a traitor to America.  There can be no half and half attitude in this war, and no honorable man can afford to take such an attitude.  We are now bound by every consideration of loyalty and good faith to our allies, and any opposition to them or any aid given to their and our enemy is basely dishonorable as regards our allies, and treasonable as regards our own country.

Weak-kneed apologists for infamy say that it is “natural” for American citizens of German origin to favor Germany.  This is nonsense, and criminal nonsense to boot.  Any American citizen who thus feels should be sent straight back to Germany, where he belongs.  We can have no “fifty-fifty” allegiance in this country.  Either a man is an American and nothing else, or he is not an American at all.  We are akin by blood and descent to most of the nations of Europe; but we are separate from all of them; we are a new and distinct nation, and we are bound always to give our whole‑hearted and undivided loyalty to our own flag, and in any international crisis to treat each and every foreign nation purely according to its conduct in that crisis.

This is a new nation, based on a mighty continent, of boundless possibilities.  No other nation in the world has such resources.  No other nation has ever been so favored.  If we dare to rise level to the opportunities offered us, our destiny will be vast beyond the power of imagination.  We must master this destiny, and make it our own; and we can thus make it our own only if we, as a vigorous and separate nation, develop a great and wonderful nationality, distinctively different from any other nationality, of either the present or the past.  For such a nation all of us can well afford to give up all other allegiances, and high of heart to stand, a mighty and united people, facing a future of glorious promise.

This nation was founded because the Americans of 1776, although predominately English by blood, fought their own kinsmen to establish their liberty and to make this nation the hope of the world.  Again, over a century ago, our forefathers once more fought England; and the men in this country who were of English blood stood with absolute loyalty, by America and against England.  It is not merely our right but our duty to insist on exactly the same full-hearted loyalty by all Americans of other descent, whenever we are at war with the countries from which their ancestors came.  We are now at war with Germany.  The offenses committed against the men of 1776 by King George and the England of his day were as nothing compared to the crimes committed against us and against all civilization and humanity by the brutalized Germany of the Hohenzollerns during the last three years.  There must be the same unhesitating loyalty shown now, by every American fit to call himself an American, as was shown in the days of our forefathers, when Paul Revere’s ride and the fight of the Minute Men at Lexington called the country to arms.

The obligation of single-minded Americanism has two sides ‑ one as important as the other, On the one hand, every man of foreign birth or parentage must in good faith become an American and nothing else; for any man who tries to combine loyalty to this country with loyalty to some other country inevitably, when the strain arises, becomes disloyal to this country he who is not with us is against us.

On the other hand, if a man in good faith, in soul and in body, becomes an American, he stands on a full and entire equality with everybody else, and must be so treated, without any mental reservation, without any regard to his creed, or birthplace or descent.  One obligation is just as binding as the other.  It is both weak and wicked to permit any of our citizens to hold a dual or divided allegiance; and it is just as mischievous, just as un-American, to discriminate against any good American, because of his birthplace, creed or parentage.

*****

We should provide for every immigrant, by day schools for the young and night schools for the adult, the chance to learn English; and if after say five years he has not learned English, he should be sent back to the land from whence he came.  We should have a system of labor exchanges and employment bureaus which will enable us to distribute the immigrants to the places where they are most needed and can do most for their own advancement.  We should protect them from fraud and rapacity.

And having thus protected them we should demand full performance of duty from them.  Every man of them should be required to serve a year with the colors, like our native born youth, before being allowed to vote.  Nothing would do more to make him feel an American among his fellow Americans, on an equality of rights, of duties and of loyalty to the flag.

There is no truth, more important than the truth that it is the performance of duty, toward the commonwealth, and not the enjoyment of unearned privilege from the commonwealth, that breeds loyalty, devotion, patriotism.  In a family, the father and mother who fail to rear their sons and daughters to  perform their recognize an duties neither receive nor  deserve the loyal devotion felt for the heads of the household where the whole household is I trained to put duty, ahead of pleasure.  It is the same with a nation.

We have believed that we would get devotion to our country from immigrants who came here merely to make money and escape meeting obligations.  The belief was ill founded.  The man who feels that the country owes him everything and that he owes the country nothing, will pay the country just what he thinks he owes nothing.  It is a curious fact that many Germans who came here to avoid military service, and who while here have had to do nothing they did not care to do, yet as soon as the strain came, felt all their loyalty toward the country which exacted much from its citizens, and none at all for the country which expected nothing from its citizens.

The wisest and quickest way to Americanize the immigrant is to make him understand that here in America we have at last waked up to our needs, and that henceforth every man, whether born here or abroad, owes this country the fullest service of body and of soul.

Unlike any other Government

explaining where we came from; What happened along the way; and, What we need to do to get back to where we belong

by

Gary Hunt
July 4 (Independence Day
In the Year of our Lord 2009
and
In the Year of our Independence the 233rd

Preface

If you accept that we are currently governed by a government established under and by the authority of the Constitution, you may wish to stop reading, now. The intention of what follows is to bring to light only some of the many misdeeds of government. It also is intended to help the reader to understand what thought process the Founding Fathers used, when they created a government unlike any other government every before seen on Earth.

The Constitution was written as a set of guidelines for the operation of the government. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Let the Constitution be the chains that bind the Government”.

We will explore where government has gone astray by violating that very document which created it, and in violation of the sacred oath they took on assuming their office of public trust.

We will also enter the realm of Administrative Agencies, perhaps even more destructive of our Liberty and Freedom than the violations of the Constitution.

When I was young, I recall the many political cartoons in Life, Look and the Saturday Evening Post  magazines. There were some that ridiculed the Soviet Union, regarding its bureaucracy and hero worship. A cartoon might show a long line of people standing before an administrative building. A passer-by asks the woman at the end of the line, “what are you standing in line for?” To which the lady responds, “I don’t know, but with this many people in line, it must be something I need!” We now find ourselves standing in line, we know not what for, more often than ever before. Waiting for something to happen that will improve our condition.

The Soviets were very prompt to create heroes out of the multitude of government personnel. In honoring a “hero” for is work, the citation might read, “For rescuing a dead cat from a fallen tree.” The idea, quite simply, was to establish in the people the fact that all government employees are, somehow, superior because they just they do their jobs — those jobs which they applied for and were given, knowing that the everyday duties of those jobs included such risks that are now rewarded, by both government and press, with accolades of “Hero”. If a non-government person is the recipient of such an award, it is, most often, a child.

Firefighters who , fifty years ago, entered burning homes and brought family members and dogs out, alive, received only a paycheck on Friday. Today, we have entered that realm of hero worship.

This happened during the period of the McCarthy Hearings of the 1950s. Every effort was made to expose those who wanted to destroy the fabric of the self-governed nation, and replace it with Communistic, share the wealth, equality for all; to each based upon his needs, from each based upon his abilities.

Perhaps it was a form of Eugenics — to try to expel those who would tear down what the Founding Fathers sacrificed so much for to build. If so, it is one that I can agree with.

People who come to this country with the intention of ignoring, or even eliminating, its culture, heritage and way of government, do not belong here. They are, at best, misguided into thinking that what was earned so dearly will be abandoned so lightly. This is America; This nation used to be a beacon to the world. The government, by submitting to whatever evils which have swayed them from what was intended, have betrayed the people of this Great Nation. The Founding Fathers, in their foresight, have left us instructions on how to right that wrong. It is our obligation; It is our duty, to return to and preserve — the United States of America.

Gary Hunt
July 4th
In the Year of our Lord, 2009, and,
In the Year of our Independence, the 233rd.

Our Tumultuous Beginnings

First American Tyranny

Shortly after the close of the French and Indian Wars (1754-1763), the British, in order to pay the cost of the just ended war, decided to impose a tax on the colonies. The Parliament enacted tax laws that were only for the North American colonies, and did not even attempt to discuss the taxes with the lawful governments (colonial governments). Instead, without regard for the laws of England and the Rights of Englishmen, bypassed the established methods of taxation

Various efforts by the colonists to gain a voice and be heard occurred between 1765 (the Stamp Act) and 1773 (the Tea Act), and, although effective to some degree, never did achieve the desired goal of representation.

On April 19, 1775, Capt. John Parker, Commander of the Militia in Lexington, lined up forty to seventy Minute men on the Lexington Green. Standing ready, they faced a few hundred of the British under the direct command of Major Pitcairn. Pitcairn ordered the Minutemen to put down their arms and disperse. As some of the minutemen began to move away, a shot was fired. Moments later, eight colonists lay dead on the Green. According to John Adams, this was the end of the revolution and the beginning of the War for Independence.

During those early years, a revolution was taking place in America. As John Adams said in a letter to Thomas Jefferson (August 24, 1815):

“…As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular. What do we mean by revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution, it was only an effect and consequence of it. The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington. The records of the thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies ought to be consulted during that period, to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of parliament over the colonies, …

Perhaps Mr. Adams was correct in that the revolution was the change of ideas rather than the war, itself.

The acts of tyranny transcend the mere concern over taxes. Governors were removed and replaced with Royal appointees; Assemblies were suspended; Writs of Assistance (warrants without affidavits or knowledge of a crime — fishing expeditions) were issued,  without judicial scrutiny; Accused individuals were transported to England for trial (where they were denied the benefit of witnesses and evidence); soldiers were quartered in homes and private property ransacked; guns, cannon, ball and powder were seized; and, the Rights of Englishmen were trampled in the dust.

During the course of these events, the colonists did not stand idle. Sons of Liberty organizations sprang up through most of the colonies. The Sons of Liberty, most often, took their orders from the Committees of Safety (an English tradition dating back to the 17th century, in the colonies), which were rapidly establishing themselves throughout the colonies.

Committees of Safety and Militia

Prior to the War for Independence, Committees of Safety were being organized throughout the colonies. Committees (an English tradition and right), made their appearance in the colonies in the 17th century. In 1692, a Committee of Safety jailed and expelled a Royal Governor (Andros) of New England. Prior to the revolution, Committees formed their militia, primarily to protect from Indian attack and provide night watchmen to give alarm in emergencies, such as fire or raids.

As the events that lead to the War continued, Committees made a return, in every colony, so that local government could deal with local problems, regardless of the ability, or inability of the Crown’s government to deal with necessary functions. In 1774, Committees appointed delegates to the First Continental Congress (the Stamp Act Congress).

Militia were, by custom, subordinate to the Royal governor, should he call for them. Otherwise, they were subordinate to the Committee of Safety. The condition of subordination of the militia (military) to civil authority has roots back to the Magna Carta (1215).

This relationship would serve, though to a lesser degree as time went by, through the War, and would provide the foundation for the subsequent Articles of Confederation and the state constitutions.

The Magna Carta

The authority for bearings arms, in the Magna Carta, is a common sense interpretation of the document. Item #1 provides that “all of the underwritten liberties” are retained. Though the Charter does not say, “the right to keep and bear arms”, it does show that even those who were tenements on the land were able to posses the weapons of the day. Their obligation was to the next master in line (next higher level of government), which, in a present sense, would be the equivalent of the community, since serfdom is no longer practiced.

1. In the first place we have granted to God, and by this our present charter confirmed for us and our heirs forever that the English Church shall be free, and shall have her rights entire, and her liberties inviolate; and we will that it be thus observed; which is apparent from this that the freedom of elections, which is reckoned most important and very essential to the English Church, we, of our pure and unconstrained will, did grant, and did by our charter confirm and did obtain the ratification of the same from our lord, Pope Innocent III, before the quarrel arose between us and our barons: and this we will observe, and our will is that it be observed in good faith by our heirs forever. We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever.

37. If anyone holds of us by fee-farm, either by socage or by burage, or of any other land by knight’s service, we will not (by reason of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage), have the wardship of the heir, or of such land of his as if of the fief of that other; nor shall we have wardship of that fee-farm, socage, or burgage, unless such fee-farm owes knight’s service. We will not by reason of any small serjeancy which anyone may hold of us by the service of rendering to us knives, arrows, or the like, have wardship of his heir or of the land which he holds of another lord by knight’s service. [Note: serjeancy, as used herein, is the obligation to provide either service to the Crown, or to provide material, such as knives, arrows, a bow or lance, or other implements of war – Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

What way to go?

Though John Adams perceived the revolution to be over by April 19, 1775, others were less inclined to separate from the Crown.

Though violence had preceded the events at Lexington and Concord, it had been isolated events, seldom with significant loss of life. From that day forward, the violence escalated, drastically. Fort Ticonderoga; Bunker Hill; Ninety-Six; South Carolina; Montreal. Canada; Norfolk, Virginia; Great Canebreak, South Carolina; Quebec City, Canada; Moore’s Creek Bridge, North Carolina; Providence Island, Bahamas; Three Rivers, Canada; Sullivan’s Island, South Carolina; Fort Moultrie, South Carolina; and hundreds of lesser contests between loyalists and patriots, throughout the colonies. All of these fought with the intention of convincing the Crown that the Rights of Englishmen belonged to the Colonists, and seeking that recognition from Parliament. All of these battles fought to demonstrate the sincerity of the colonists with their demand for change.

Thousands of lives lost, while committed only to a resolution of the grievances that had been repeatedly sent to the government to be addressed. Constant prayer that resolution would be found and arms set aside — returning to the warm arms of Mother England.

Though there were few colonists who believed that there was no recourse but to separate, forever, from English rule, it wasn’t until nearly fifteen months after the beginning of the war that the colonial government realized that too much had occurred to every believe that reconciliation could ever be achieved.

Declaration of Independence

On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was formally signed. This magnificent document provides an insight into the thinking of the Founding Fathers. For example, it provides their explanation of the purpose of government: “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Those rights therein mentioned are enumerated as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Clearly, they have provided us an understanding the government was instituted to serve the interests of the people, not to serve the interests of the ruler, which concept was so prevalent in Europe.

They also provide us the reason that they had taken on the formidable task of separating from England, “that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

They also explain the difficulty in coming to the point of separation with the explanation that “ Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Next, they explain the obligation that they impose upon the future, should events demonstrate that the government has deviated from its proper purpose.

“But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

They then proceed with a list of grievances to reveal how the government of England has failed to serve the people, amongst which are:

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance…

He has obstructed the administration of justice…

He has made judges dependent on his will alone

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and acknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts or pretended legislation:

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:

For imposing taxes upon us without our consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of a trial by jury:

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

Perhaps we can see some parallels, here:

State enacted laws are superseded by federal enactments

Congress has established FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) courts

The independent judiciary, on many levels, has succumbed to administrative handouts funded by the federal government

The established bureaucracy (alphabet agencies) have become burdensome both in their imposition on our lives, and the costs of their maintenance.

Most every federal agency has been authorized to carry firearms, and some agencies have resorted to military equipment (tanks) to conduct their investigative duties.

Military forces have served in combat roles without declaration of war by the Congress, and have been directed to serve under the command of foreign officers.

Administrative agencies have been provided rule-making powers that are clearly imposed upon us outside of the protections of the Constitution.

Federal and state enforcement agencies have committed murder, with impunity, including the murder of women and children and the burning of churches and homes.

The government has, arbitrarily, determined that it can spend itself out of debt, that debt being imposed not only on us, but also on our posterity, for many generations to come.

By denying us the fundamental right to jury nullification, which had been prevalent throughout our history.

State laws and state initiatives have been made moot by federal agencies ignoring state law and punishing people who were acting totally within the laws within their respective state.

Thoughts of the Founding Fathers

The thought process of the Founding Fathers was unconventional, for the times. Monarchy was the form of government, with few exceptions, in Europe. Never before had such a group of people been in a situation where what was being cast off did not have a replacement in the wings.

Political theory had abounded, the century before the revolution, but there had never been an opportunity to put such theory into practice.

One of the major theorists was John Locke. Locke was one of the Enlightenment philosophers, venturing into ideological arenas seldom entered before, by man. He challenged Sir Robert Filmer’s Patriarcha, which had become the primary justification for the continuation of monarchal rule in Europe. Filmer explained the monarchy as rule by descendancy to the eldest son — from Adam to the then present monarch (George I), as the authority by which the sovereign right came.

Locke argued to the contrary. He felt that man could establish government and govern, not rule, himself. The above-mentioned quotations on government contained in the Declaration of Independence are a paraphrase of portions of Locke’s Second Treatise on Government. A more extensive presentation of Locke’s theory will be included, after some other considerations.

The First governments of the United States

The Articles of Confederation

During the early days of the War for Independence from British Tyranny, the colonists realized the need for a common entity; a consolidation of the colonial effort was necessary. Each state, large and small in both area and population, had to find an expedient means that allowed them to, jealously, protect their newfound ‘state’ governments. The result, hastily prepared and entered into, was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union (March 1, 1781). Though the term “united States of America” had been used in previous documents, the first document to create such an entity was the Articles of Confederation.

Each state, regardless of size or population, was given one vote in the Congress of the Confederation. States were not allowed to raise their own standing armies (though militias were allowed). The Articles also provided that it was created , ” … for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other, against all force offered to, or attacks made upon them…”

The problem with the Articles

The Articles provided that the debt incurred for the War would be acknowledged, and would be the obligation of the United States of America, though there was no provision that could force compliance of the states to contribute their share for the payment of such debt. Similarly, there were no means to force any state to contribute funds necessary for the obligations of government, or of manpower to continue the War.

After the War was concluded, a dilemma was created by the inability of the Congress to obtain sufficient support for other purposes of government. The government was foundering; unable to pay its debts; unable to sustain order within it realm; and, a multitude of other obstacles which kept it from performing its intended function. It was in a crisis.

The Articles, when formed, were done so hastily. It was an experiment that had no models, only theory, to follow. Through its first six years, the problems became apparent — to a point that amendment was necessary, if the United States of America were to survive. It was with this in mind that the states came together with the intention of making amendments to address the problems that had been exposed by practice

The Constitution

As with almost any creative enterprise, or product, there is seldom success with the first venture. One of the major disparities in the Articles was that of representation. The states with larger populations felt that each man should have his vote. This idea found support in those colonies that were not so established, but had land areas sufficient to allow substantial growth to their respective populations. On the other side, smaller states, very dense in population, argued that since the government was a Union, each state should to be equally heard in Congress. After all, this was what composed the existing government — created by the Articles, with equal representation to each state. The final solution was attendant to both arguments. The House of Representatives would be based upon the number of people within a state; this was the Republican form of government. The Senate would give each state equal say in the operations of that body; this was the democratic form of government. However, within each state a subsequent article in the Constitution guaranteed the Republican form of government

Next came the Executive. Many proposals were set forth, and finally a single executive, with the authority to carry out the will of the Congress, and to make recommendations to that Congress in an annual State of the Union address.

The judiciary was intended to remain impartial by not making the judges subject to changes in compensation, during their tenure.

The extent of the authority of the federal government was limited. Article I, Section 8 laid out the limits of authority granted by the people, for the government.

When the details had been ironed out, the Constitution was sent to each state for ratification, or rejection. A few states refused to ratify unless a Bill of Rights were adopted as a part of the Constitution. Eventually, the required nine states ratified the Constitution (June 21, 1788).

The Bill of Rights was submitted to the states for ratification, and was ratified on December 15, 1791.

The new government of the United States, which evolved from the Articles of Confederation was now the law of the land.

Though a brief explanation is provided, above, it is necessary to understand that a Preamble in a document is as much a part of the document as the text. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The purpose is clearly laid out, and is consistent with what was discussed, earlier, that the purpose of government is to protect Life, Property, and Liberty. Justice serves to that end; domestic Tranquility also serves to that end; providing for the common defense, serves that purpose no less; and, Promoting (not providing) the general Welfare is the final purpose, toward that same end.

Further, it should be noted that, for the first time in the history of the world, the People, even though done through representation at Constitutional ratification conventions, were the authority that created this new government. It was not created by the Articles of Confederation, nor was it based upon the descendancy from Adam, or a grant from God. It was the sovereign authority of the People (which was considered a grant from God) which created this government and to soon be a great nation, as described above.

Seldom acknowledged is that the Bill of Rights was also ratified with a Preamble. The Preamble anticipated that some of the concerns not addressed in the Constitution should be addressed to assure that the proper role of government be observed. It read:

The conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.

There can be little doubt, especially upon reading this Preamble (purpose) of the Bill of Rights, and Articles in Amendment number 9 and 10 that the authority of government is limited only to those powers enumerated therein.

Article 9

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article 10

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

These two articles are instrumental in tying the Constitution to the Declaration of Independence.

Sacrifices Betrayed?

Violations of the Constitution

During the course of the history of the United States of America, operating under the authority of the Constitution, there have been many violations of the Constitutions and unlawful usurpations of authority, which were not granted by the Constitution.

Though not intended to list all such violations, some significant ones will be addressed here:

West Virginia

Article IV, Section. 3 of the Constitution provides that: New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Virginia seceded from the Union on April 17, 1861.

West Virginia was comprised of lands within the existing state of Virginia. It was made a state on June 20, 1863

The legislature of Virginia never gave the Consent, as required by the Constitution

Lincoln, as President, and in his proclaimed ‘desire to uphold the Constitution and retain the Union’, allowed the Congress to circumvent the Constitution in order to provide a Constitutional quorum in the legislature. A bit of a contradiction, which was never resolved by obtaining the “Consent” of Virginia, even after the Civil War was concluded.

The 14th Amendment

The Congress proposed the 14th Amendment to the Constitution on June 13, 1866.

The ratification 3/4ths of the states, or 28 of the then 37 states), by states, is as follows:

Connecticut (June 25, 1866)

New Hampshire (July 6, 1866)

Tennessee (July 19, 1866)

New Jersey (September 11, 1866)*

Oregon (September 19, 1866)

Vermont (October 30, 1866)

Ohio (January 4, 1867)*

New York (January 10, 1867)

Kansas (January 11, 1867)

Illinois (January 15, 1867)

West Virginia (January 16, 1867)

Michigan (January 16, 1867)

Minnesota (January 16, 1867)

Maine (January 19, 1867)

Nevada (January 22, 1867)

Indiana (January 23, 1867)

Missouri (January 25, 1867)

Rhode Island (February 7, 1867)

Wisconsin (February 7, 1867)

Pennsylvania (February 12, 1867)

Massachusetts (March 20, 1867)

Nebraska (June 15, 1867)

Iowa (March 16, 1868)

Arkansas (April 6, 1868)

Florida (June 9, 1868)

North Carolina (July 4, 1868, after having rejected it on December 14, 1866)

Louisiana (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on February 6, 1867)

South Carolina (July 9, 1868, after having rejected it on December 20, 1866)

Throughout our history, this is the only instance where, when a state had rejected ratification, it was later allowed to withdraw that rejection. Similarly, when Ohio*, on January 15, 1868, attempted to withdraw its ratification, and, on February 28, 1868, New Jersey* attempted to withdraw its ratification, both were rejected in their withdrawals. Prior to, and since the 14th Amendment, once a state ratifies or rejects a proposed amendment, that action is unchangeable.

The Constitution is clear on the ratification process. It can be submitted through the Congress or through a Convention, convened by the State legislatures. That if proposed Amendments are submitted to the States for ratification, and “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress.”

It does not create a Turkey Shoot, where second shots can be had. The State Legislature, or the State Conventions, by “three-fourths vote”, determine if the Amendment is ratified as a part of the Constitution, or not.

Pressure was brought to bear on three states, and, subjecting themselves to that pressure, they changed their vote. Two other states, absent pressure (a voluntary act) had second thoughts about the consequences of the Amendment, chose to change their vote. The three were granted, the two were denied.

Though the Constitution does not make clear whether ratifications can be retracted, or, when rejected, whether that first decision can be changed. Therefore, we must look to common sense, and, common sense dictates that only one or the other can apply. Histories of ratifications prior and subsequent to the 14th Amendment have not allowed the practice of change of the first choice.

So, though not clear in the Constitution history, common sense must prevail, and we must consider what was done with the 14th Amendment to be as much a violation of the Constitution, due to the double-standard, as was the creation of West Virginia, as a state. That the 14th Amendment was not ratified in accordance with the Constitution.

The Federal Reserve

In 1913, the Congress enacted the Federal Reserve Act. Though there are many arguments respecting the unconstitutionality of the act, only one will be addressed here.

By establishing the Federal Reserve Bank, a consequence of the Federal Reserve Act, the authority to ‘coin’ money and ‘regulate the value thereof’ was granted to a private entity.

Article I, Section 8, clause 5 provides that congress has the power to:

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

It is clear that the Congress abrogated its responsibility, under the Constitution, “To coin Money”, by allowing a private entity to “coin” money and set “regulate” its value (by giving the Federal Reserve Note the same value as the Gold and Silver coin, and to remove the Congressional Responsibility and to pass it on to a private interest.

Congress abrogated its responsibility under the Constitution. Regardless of the arguments to the contrary, common sense, again dictates that the Constitution was violated.

Gold removed

In 1917, Congress passed the Trading with the Enemy Act to primarily, which, under conditions of war, gave extraordinary powers to the President. World War I ended on November 11, 1918.

On Sunday, March 5, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt called for Congress to “convene in extra session” on March 9, 1933 [Proclamation 2038]. On the next day, he declared, by proclamation, a “bank holiday” which ran from Monday, March 6 through Thursday, March 9, inclusive. In the proclamation, he makes some rather interesting claims. He states that “there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency . . . for the purpose of hoarding.” and this “has resulted in severe drains on the Nation’s stocks of gold : and” 

“WHEREAS these conditions have created a national emergency”

He then goes on to refer to “Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L, 411) as amended ‘That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of license or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency * * *’”

Further, “NOW, THEREFORE, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America in view of the national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by said Act . . . ” (emphasis mine), and he declares the “holiday”.

The “national emergency” that he spoke of was the extension of lending authority granted to the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB, established by the Federal Reserve Act, see above) just twenty years before. The FRB was unable to provide, in gold, the deposits on hand. The system of fractional banking had allowed them to extend credit well beyond the available “value” held in trust by the banks. This is the definition of bankrupt: “The state or condition of one who is unable to pay his debts as they are, or become, due.”

[Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition]

Article I, Section 8, clause 5 provides that congress has the power to “To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin”, and, Article I, Section 10, clause 1, reads, in part: “No State shall… make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts…”

In 1933, Congress set the value of gold at 32 dollars per ounce. Since that time, the value of gold has fluctuated based upon worldwide demand. The dollar, at present, based upon the value established indirectly by the Federal Reserve Bank (purchasing power) is over $900 per ounce. Clearly, Congress has given up its responsibility to “regulate the value thereof, and has removed it from the public, prohibiting the states from fulfilling their obligation, under

Ashwander v. TVA

Article III, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution reads:

Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.  

Section 2: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;…

All judicial power is vested in the supreme Court. That power extends to all Cases arising under this Constitution. Remaining provisions must be subordinate to those mentioned.

The protection of the People, and the assurance that the government acts in accordance with the Constitution, then, is clearly the responsibility of the Supreme Court.

In 1936, the Supreme Court ruled on a case, Ashwander vs. Tennessee Valley Authority. Judge Louis D. Brandeis, in an opinion concurring with the Court, provided us some insight into why we could no longer expect the Constitution to provide the restraints on government, as intended by the Founding Fathers. His opinion, in part:

The Court developed, for its own governance in the cases confessedly within its jurisdiction, a series of rules under which it has avoided passing upon a large part of all the constitutional questions pressed upon it for decision. They are:

1. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of legislation in a friendly, nonadversary, proceeding, declining because to decide such questions is legitimate only in the last resort, and as a necessity in the determination of real, earnest and vital controversy between individuals…

2. The Court will not” anticipate a question of constitutional law in advance of the necessity of deciding it…It is not the habit of the Court to decide questions of a constitutional nature unless absolutely necessary to a decision of the case

3. The Court will not “formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied

4. The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question, although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of. This rule has found most varied application. Thus, if a case can be decided on either of two grounds, one involving a constitutional question, the other a question of statutory construction or general law, the Court will decide only the latter

5. The Court will not pass upon the validity of a statute upon complaint of one who fails to show that he is injured by its operation. Among the many applications of this rule, none is more striking than the denial of the right of challenge to one who lacks a personal or property right. Thus, the challenge by a public official interested only in the performance of his official duty will not be entertained.

6. The Court will not pass upon the constitutionality of a statute at the instance of one who has availed himself of its benefits.

7. When the validity of an act of the Congress is drawn in question, and even if a serious doubt of constitutionality is raised, it is a cardinal principle that this Court will first ascertain whether a construction of the statute is fairly possible by which the question may be avoided.

It would appear that a public servant, who felt that his duties violated the Constitution, could not get the Court to make a determination as to the Constitutionality of that duty. For example, if one of Hitler’s SS troops felt that he was being told to do something that he perceived as a violation of the Constitution, he would have no standing to ask the Court for a determination. He would be compelled, by law, to “just do his job”. (Number 5)

Once a person seeks a benefit from an agency (Social Security, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Motor Vehicles, Welfare, Child Protective Services, etc.), he is no longer protected by the Constitution, for the supreme Court will rule that, since he has availed himself of its benefits, he is bound by that agency’s rules (number 6)

The First Amendment, Bill of Rights: “Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

In effect, the Court has removed itself as a means of ‘redress of grievances, by allowing itself to ‘rule’ that they will not answer questions regarding the Constitutionality of laws, enactments, or rules promulgated by agencies (whether in violation of the Constitution, or not).

The supreme Court has, throughout our history, been the last resort for the determination of the Constitutionality of any law or enactment. The distinction between legal and lawful has, historically, hinged upon that final determination by the Court.

When the Court, by itself, can subordinate that important function, based upon rules promulgated by themselves, the Court has removed the common people from the protections of the Constitution.

They have provided a superiority to the administrative agencies of government, and an inferiority to the Supreme Law of the Land.

Vietnam

Korea came and went, at the tail end and under the emotions of World War II. It is often referred to as “the Forgotten War”, so we will leave it forgotten, for the purpose of this current work, though it does fall into a category similar to Vietnam.

Article I, Section 8, clause 11 provides that Congress shall have the power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

Nowhere else in the Constitution is there any provision for the declaration of war. The Founding Fathers felt that the power to declare war was too awesome a power to give to one man (the President). There can be little doubt as to their intentions, and we can look back, historically, and see that whenever war was declared, the reasons why the war was declared, and who the enemy was, were clearly stated.

Some will try to compare what Thomas Jefferson did when he sent the Marines to the Barbary Coast to deal with the Barbary Pirates, and their supporters. Jefferson, however, was acting under a true emergency. He declared his objectives and sent forth the powers of the United States to release those taken prisoner; to retrieve the lost cargoes, if possible; to recover the American ships seized by the Pirates; and, to set forth to the world that the United States of America was not to be messed with. He went in, did the job and moved out. The Barbary affair was over.

In Vietnam, we saw an advisory venture — an effort to train the native Vietnamese to control their own destiny. There was no defined enemy, as the enemy, for the most part, was South Vietnamese citizens, with aid coming from their allies in the North. We did not enter (until much later) the territory of the perceived enemy of North Vietnam, nor did Congress ever declare war and state the cause and the enemy.

After gradual escalations in forces, and after a rather controversial ‘attack’ on American military surveillance ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, Congress enacted “the Southeast Asia Resolution”, Public Law 88-408. This law authorized President Lyndon Baines Johnson, without a declaration of war, to use military force in Southeast Asia. Congress had abrogated its responsibility, under the Constitution, to provide that safeguard against the power of one man.

There was no legally defined enemy. We were fighting insurgents who were simply in rebellion against their own government (involved in a civil war of another nation), and we were fighting well outside of the authority granted by the Constitution,

Eight years later, after spending billions of dollars and sacrificing the lives of over 58 thousand young American men, we withdrew, in defeat, from a war that was unlawful and unwinnable.

The Congress abrogated its responsibility, under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution, by allowing the President to have the effect, by his commitment of millions of soldiers to foreign soil, where tens of thousands of them died, of conducting a war on foreign soil, without the requisite declaration of war.

This is a violation of the Constitution by both Congress and the President, and denied the protection of the Constitution to those who fought and/or died in Vietnam.

 

Silver removed

After a one year notice, requested by the United States Treasury Department, on June 24, 1968, the Treasury Department, and banks across the nation would no longer redeem Silver Certificates for silver coin. Silver had gone the way of Gold, in violation of the requirements of the Constitution, and without amendment thereto.

Just as with Gold, the Congress had allowed the value of coin to be established by a private entity, though in this instance, there was no longer any coin of the realm to compare values to.

The last means of paying debt, in accordance with the Constitution were completely removed by this act.

Again, the Constitution was twice violated.

Proliferation of bureaucracy

We have frequently heard that our Constitutional Rights are being violated. Ironically, it has nothing to do with Constitutional Rights. It has to do with Bureaucracy — A proliferation of Bureaucracy.

Ashwander v. TVA lays out for us just how this next step in creating a Police State occurs. There is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits you from contracting. In fact, Article I, Section 10 sates: “No State shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” So, if you contract for anything (privilege of driving, entering into marriage, build a house, open a business, receive anything from the government, etc.), you are bound by the contract. Moreover, since you receive something in return, your contract has the requisite ‘consideration for consideration’, which means that you have not gone into involuntary servitude. You are just plain stuck with the government as the overseer of all that you do.

Somewhere, the talons of Ashwander have ripped into your chest, and you cannot remove them. The result is what amounts to no less a Police State than Hitler had in 1930s Germany. In fact, the art has been so perfected by the existing government that it may be more powerful than that of Germany.

It is an insidious form of control, for the deception is such that you are lead to believe that it has nothing to do with Constitutional Rights (“don’t bring that Constitution into my courtroom”), when, in fact, it has everything to do with the subtle destruction of those rights. Do we lose our rights just because the government says that they are there, but don’t apply, in this case? Or, is it the obligation of government to “secure” those tights, and protect us from encroachment of them? If it was intended by the Founding Fathers that the latter is the case, then the police state that has evolved in this country is as much a violation of the Constitution as those mentioned above.

Some examples, though there are many more, follow.

Police state

Prohibition

In 1917, the Congress proposed an amendment to the Constitution. The Amendment was ratified 2 years later and became known as the 18th Amendment, or, “Prohibition”. The Amendment reads as follows:

Section. 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.

Section. 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Section. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

It should be noted that the Amendment did not prohibit consumption of alcohol, it only made it difficult to obtain. Congress, back then, knew that they could not pass a law that worked directly on the people — only on the commerce. The Amendment was needed because there was no other means, under the Constitution, to deny free men access to alcohol, except by an amendment to the Constitution. Meanwhile, cocaine and marijuana were dispensed at the corner drug store, without the need for a prescription from a doctor. Your health was in your own hands.

The Amendment was repealed, in its entirety, by the 21st Amendment on December 5, 1933. During its tenure, a number of things happened in the country that are significant. First was that juries would nullify the law by refusing, in many locations, to convict those who had been charged with alcohol related crimes. This right of “jury nullification” was fundamental to our sense of justice and that the people are the final arbiter of all laws. Just as had occurred after the supreme Court had decided, in the Dred Scott vs. Sandford case (that a slave must be returned to its legal owner), where juries failed to convict those who ran underground railroads. Ultimately, the unpopularity of the Amendment, as attested by the jury nullification resulted in repeal.

During Prohibition, the groundwork was laid for the extraordinary growth of organized crime. The demand for ‘illegal’ alcohol was such that control of the trade yielded millions of dollars of profit. What had been small business had become so large that it covered most of the country and into parts of Canada. The diminishing remains of organized crime are still with us, today, many years after the end of Prohibition.

It also provided groundwork for the proliferation of administrative agencies, and the granting of extraordinary (extra constitutional) powers to these them.

The Great Depression, just a few years later, provided even more means for agencies to begin controlling our lives. Social Security began in 1935, though it was limited, then, only to people who worked for a corporation that had contracts with the government.

Ashwander v. TVA (above) provided the nexus for the proliferation of the police state that has evolved with those agencies.

Prohibition demonstrated that: it would require a Constitutional Amendment to control commercial production, sale, or transportation of a drug; that even with an Amendment, the government could not prohibit you using that drug; and, that an Amendment was required to grant the states the power to enforce federal laws.

With the advent of the police state, and supported by the refusal of the supreme Court to rule on Constitutionality, agencies can now promulgate rules which we are bound by, without recourse to the Constitution.

Local agencies, by virtue of receiving federal funds (yes, your dollars) have been ‘greenmailed’ into obedience to federal law, regardless of the Constitutionality of that law (Ashwander, #5).

Your ability to question a law would require that you first prove that you have not sought a benefit from the agency whose rules you have violated (a very expensive process, to go to the supreme Court).

Because of the foundation laid by Ashwander, we have become subject to bureaucratic rule. Following are just a very few of the inflictions imposed upon us by this police state:

Waco, Texas – February 28 – April 19, 1993

During the morning press conference in Waco, Texas, during the siege of the Branch Davidian Church, Louis Beam asked a question. He asked, “Is what is happening here, in Waco, indicative of the coming police state? The speakers at the press conference (FBI and BATF) never responded to Mr. Beam’s question, though after some whispering, we saw the Waco Police Department remove Mr. Beam from the press conference, at the point of a gun.

Again, at Waco, after the final reports were presented, we found that, perhaps, the BATF was a bit overzealous in conducting the raid that resulted in the deaths of more than a hundred men, women, and children. Yet, no federal agents were ever tried for a crime that cost so many lives.

In Waco, Texas, April 19, 1993, the FBI was armed with tanks, grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons and has its own team of snipers. This would appear to be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the use of the military against the people, but instead is merely the providing of military uniforms, fully automatic rifles, grenade launchers, sniper teams, tanks, and other military equipment to both tax collectors (BATF) and investigators (FBI).

It needs to be understood, also, that the police state provides protection for its agents.

After the Boston Massacre, Captain Preston and seven soldiers were charged with Manslaughter. Preston and five others were acquitted, because they acted to defend their lives. The other two were found guilty, but, through benefit of clergy, were branded and released.

So, the King’s soldiers stood trial for killing civilians. They were acquitted because they had a right to defend their lives. They did not have immunity from prosecution, but they did have a right to defend themselves (a very fundamental right, without which, any other right has no meaning).

Eight of the Branch Davidians stood trial for numerous charges. Though there is no doubt that they were defending their lives, since all, except Paul Fatta, who was not in Mt. Carmel at the time, were charged with use of firearms on February 28, 1993, the day of the initial raid. All of them were convicted of the use of a firearm in the commission of a crime. They were not, however, convicted of a crime in which they used the firearm in the commission of.

The ‘soldiers (BATF and FBI agents) were never tried to determine, by a jury, whether they had committed any crimes.

Clearly, the police state that exists in this country, today, is far more protective of those who support it (agencies and agents), and far less protective of the people within the country, who were protecting their very lives from an assault by tax collectors (BATF).

Ruby Ridge, Idaho – August 21 – August 31, 1992

Months earlier, 14-year-old Sammy Weaver was shot in the back, and killed by US Marshals who were trespassing on the Weaver property at Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Later, his mother, Vicki Weaver, was assassinated by FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi. Vicki was unarmed and holding her newborn child in her arms. No federal agents were charged with a crime by federal authorities. Later, however, an Idaho Grand Jury indicted Horiuchi for involuntary manslaughter. Horiuchi petitioned to have the case transferred to federal court. US District Judge Edward Lodge ruled that, since Horiuchi was a federal officer acting in his official capacity, he was exempt from prosecution under the supremacy clause of the Constitution.

The supremacy clause (Article VI, paragraph 2) reads:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

Further, during the siege, the Hostage Rescue Team Commander, Richard Rogers, amended the FBI standard rules of engagement to:

1. If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement, deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children.
2. If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, and is not attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual.
3. If compromised by any animal, particularly the dogs, that animal should be eliminated.
4. Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris, presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to oneself or that of another.

This was not an enactment of law by the Congress of the United States; it was made by a field commander of a bureaucratic agency of government. He authorized his people to KILL Americans for having a firearm on their own property. It does not require that a subject be pointing his weapon in their direction, nor that the agent would have to feel that there was a direct and immediate threat to his life. It was all a charade to give justification, in writing, to kill the Weavers and Kevin Harris, if the opportunity arose.

Weaver and Harris stood trial, but were acquitted of any charges related to the incident at Ruby Ridge. Two of the Sate Attorneys were fined for falsifying evidence (since the case could have had capital consequence, they were actually trying to kill Weaver and Harris, again). Moreover, none of the agents who killed Sammy or Vicki Weaver was brought to trial. They were protected by the same agencies for which they work.

Malibu, Californian – October 2, 1992

Donald P. Scott, age 61, owned and lived on a 200-acre property known as the Trails End Ranch in the Ventura County portion of Malibu, California. Based upon a sworn affidavit by Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Deputy Gary R. Spencer, stating that with aerial surveillance it was determined that there were between 50 and 100 marijuana plants growing on the property, a search warrant was issued.

On Friday, August 2, 1992, 30 law enforcement officers (13 from Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, 5 from Los Angeles Police Department. 3 from the National Guard. 3 from the National Park Service. 2 from U.S. Forest Service. 2 from California Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement, and 2 from the federal Drug Enforcement Agency) gathered at the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Malibu Station for briefing.

About 8:30 AM, the team forced entry into the home of Scott. Scott, who was awakened by the commotion, did not have time to dress before the entry was made. Frances Plante, who was already up, was hustled outside to other officers. Scott, responding to the commotion, came to the doorway to the living room with a gun. As described in the official report, “Scott was holding a gun in his right hand, with his palm and fingers around the cylinder rather than the butt. Scott’s elbow was at his side with his forearm straight out or slightly up, his hand turned up with the barrel of the gun pointing at a 45-degree angle toward the ceiling. Scot was holding the gun with the barrel upward, as if he were going to hit someone rather than shoot it.”

Spencer, then fearing for his life, he and another deputy fired three shots, at point blank range, killing Donald Scott in his own home. No evidence of marijuana or any other drugs were found in the home or on the property.

Ventura County, although they were never notified of a raid within their jurisdiction, did conduct the final report on the shooting. In their conclusions, the report states that:

… Because it cannot be proven that Spencer knowingly lied in the affidavit, there is an insufficient basis for a perjury prosecution,

It is the District Attorney’s opinion that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to seize and forfeit the ranch for the government. …. This search warrant became Donald Scott’s death warrant.

The evidence does not establish that Donald Scott intended a shoot out with the deputies. Nor is there any evidence to suggest that the deputies went to the ranch with the hope of killing Scott. When Deputy Spencer ordered Scott to lower his gun, Scott did so in a way that Spencer says caused him to fear for his life. …The invalidity of the warrant does not form a sufficient legal or evidentiary basis for a homicide prosecution.

It becomes apparent that the police state mentality, asset forfeiture, and nearly absolute impunity for law enforcement officers has become detrimental to not only our property, but our lives, as well.

Nobody was charged, to be tested by a jury of people, to determine if Donald Scott’s life was taken as the result of criminal activity.

Agency State

Children

Child Protective Services is known by different names in some parts of the country, but there is little difference in the policies and activities of these insidious government agencies.

One event, which occurred about 1986 involved, separated parents. The mother, living with a child from the current marriage and two from a former marriage, lived on Ocala, Florida. The father lived in Orlando. One day, the father received a phone call from the hysterical mother. “They came in the house and told me to go to a room, and they took the children and terrorized them”, she said. The father told her that he would be there, shortly, to see what he could do.

When he arrived, the mother explained that Child Protective Services had come to her door and said that they wanted to speak with the children; they said that they had received a report that the mother had abused the children. They demanded that she go into a bedroom and close the door while they asked the children some questions, and looked for signs of child abuse. They would not answer any questions, and they continued their ‘examination’ of the children for over half an hour. Finally, they allowed her to come out of the room and informed her that they found no evidence of child abuse. Again, they would answer no questions, though they did leave a business card.

The children were frightened, even after the CPS people had left. The oldest, a girl asked her mother if they were going to take her away from her mother. The mother had no idea what the answer to the question was.

The father arrived and the mother told him what had happened. He was irate, and took the business card and drove to the offices of the CPS. He demanded to see a supervisor, and, after repeated demands, was finally led to a room occupied by a woman who appeared to be a director. He explained what had occurred and insisted on seeing the report that had been filed. She denied his request, and the conversation continued. He explained that he was not going to leave the office until he was able to see the report. Finally, the women relented, left the office, and returned with a Xerox of the report that was filed. The father read the report and noted that there were a couple of items ‘blacked out with a marker’. The obscured items was the name of the person filing the report and their address and phone number. The report, however, made clear that the report was called in over the telephone.

The father then insisted that,” in accordance with the Constitution, we have a right to meet the accuser. You have provided nothing along the lines of what I requested. I want to see the report that caused your people to terrorize my family.” After a very heated discussion, the women, again, left and returned, this time with a complete copy of the report. On this copy, which claimed that the person had personal knowledge that the mother abused the children, was blank in both the address and the phone number, however, in the box for the name of the person filing the report was written “anonymous”.

Florida, when they adopted the child abuse database, determined that if ever anyone’s name were entered in the database, it would never be removed. Consequently, the mother’s name will, forever, be listed as a possible child abuser.

The father informed the CPS that if they were ever an investigation, again, into that family, that he be notified and be allowed to be present. The woman made some notes and assured him that he would be notified. Thus ends this story, but not the knowledge that someone who was an excellent mother will, forever, have her name on the rolls of those who have abused their children

There are many occurrences of CPS taking children away from their parents. Usually, when this occurs, any court proceedings come after the children are taken. The children have become the property of the state, which is provided substantial funds by the federal government, leaving families destroyed. Very few have had such a fortunate outcome as described above.

Administrative agencies have managed to, somehow, bring the children into their web. In most cases, welfare, or some other program advertised to help parents with their children, are the means by which the ‘benefit’ is sought, thereby binding the parents to the rules of the agency.

Property Forfeiture

There are so many cases of property seizure and forfeiture that it difficult to know where to start. We have all read accounts of someone travelling with large amounts of cash in their car, or their purse or pocket. They are stopped by local law enforcement. They are asked to give permission to search the vehicle. Most often, the unwary driver says “yes”.

The officer then searches the vehicle and finds a large amount of cash. He will probably let the person go, perhaps with a ticket, though sometimes with a simple, “you are free to go”. The cash, however, is confiscated by the officer as “presumed to be the byproduct of criminal activity”.

The cash is turned over to the court and a proceeding takes place, styled along the lines of “Acme County v. $9,378 dollars in cash”. Then, if the owner of the cash has the wherewithal to pay an attorney to represent the “cash” in the suit, they start watching the value of the cash reduced proportionate to the cost of the legal proceedings.

The ‘court” is operating under the premise that the cash is a byproduct of criminal activity, therefore, the due process required by the Fifth Amendment is moot. Here, we come to a matter of interpretation of our contract with the government. The court assumes that the owner of the property has not been deprived of the property, even though the due process had been preceded by the confiscation of the property.

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

So the complex legal question of whether you are deprived of your property when the officer takes it from you, or you are deprived of your property, which the officer deprived you of, only after the court finalizes the theft of your property. Thank God for attorneys because this is such a difficult  interpretation of the wording of the Fifth Amendment.

However, maybe there is another “presumed right”, of which we have all been told the existence of. That being you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If that is true within the American judicial system, then the presumption of innocence applies both to you and to your cash. How can “byproduct of criminal activity” be assumed if there is no crime with which to associate the activity?

Finally, in what country in the world have we ever heard that you can be presumed to be criminal if you have lawful, or legal, coin of the realm in your pocket?

Motor Vehicles

Did you ever wonder why the lender (lien holder) can reposes someone’s car, without a court order? Quite simply, the person who thinks he owns the car doesn’t really own it.

It starts when the car is bought. You fill out a neat little package of forms so that the dealer can take the package down to the Motor Vehicle Department (DMV) and get a temporary tag until the real tag arrives in your mailbox.

One, or more of the little cards that you fill out is called a “Power of Attorney”. The Dealer takes the Power of Attorney and a piece of paper that he got when the car was delivered from the manufacture. That piece of paper is known as the Manufacture’s Statement of Origin (MSO). You could say that it is the “birth certificate” for the automobile. When the dealer takes your Power of Attorney and the MSO, and, of course, some of your money, to the DMV, he asks them, under the authority of the Power of Attorney , to make the automobile a motor vehicle. The DMV will then issue a Certificate of Title. Now, this is where it begins to get interesting.

Let’s go to Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition) to see how your car becomes a vehicle:

“Certificate of title. See Insurance (Title insurance)” [page 206]

It seems rather strange to have to look under ” insurance” for ” certificate of title” , but, let’s try it:

Insurance **** {page 721][deep into the many paragraphs, we find:]

Title insurance. Insurance against loss or damage resulting from defects or failure of title to a particular parcel of reality, or from enforcement of liens existing against it at the time of insurance. This form of insurance is taken out by the purchaser of the property or one loaning money on mortgage, and is furnished by companies specially organized for the purpose, and which keep complete sets of abstracts or duplicates of the records, employ expert title-examiners, and prepare conveyances and transfers of all sorts. A ” certificate of title” furnished by such a company is merely the formally expressed professional opinion of the company’s examiner that the title is complete and perfect (or otherwise, as stated), and the company is only liable for want of care, skill, or diligence on the part of its examiner.

So, what does that say? It says that the state, through the DMV, insures that the one loaning money is insured as to the title of the car. That is the lien holder, not you. Until the lien holder is removed from the title, it is their car. It also makes it commercial, it is being insured as a “motor vehicle”.

So, what is a “motor vehicle”?  For this, we have to go to the US Code, TITLE 18 – CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, Section 31. Definitions. There, we find:

” Motor vehicle” means every description of carriage or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo

and,

” Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit

So, by getting a Certificate of Title, in exchange for a Manufacture’s Statement of Origin, you end up with a commercial vehicle that belongs to the lien holder, not you. And, you paid for it.

Since it belongs to them, they can take it, if you have breached the contract.

To make this charade as effective as possible, everybody keeps very quiet about it. So, unless you pay cash for a new car, and, ask for the MSO, you can expect to drive a commercial “motor vehicle” rather than a car.

Home  Building Permits

Did you ever wonder why, in a free country, you had to get a building permit to build a home? Even if you want to add a room, you must get a building permit.

Imagine, if you will, a covered wagon travelling across the vast plains of the Midwest, venturing out to California or Oregon, in search of a new life. They arrive as the winter snows begin to fall. They have been living out of their wagon for the past eight months, and are anxious to begin their new home.

As the father is cutting down trees, preparing them for cabin logs, a stranger walks up and says, “Sir, where is your building permit? You will need to have plans prepared by an architect. You will, if you want indoor plumbing, the work will have to be performed by a licensed plumber. Then, you will need a septic tank, so you will have to get a soil engineer’s certificate of suitability of the soil for the septic tank. Thank God, there was no electricity, then.

Surely, they would have repacked their wagon and reversed their trek.

Under the guise of “for your own protection”, agencies have grown out of the woodwork to assure that you don’t endanger yourself by building a home of sod, logs, dirt, or even bricks.

Back in 1968, a Vietnam Veteran found an old house, in the hills south of Watsonville, California. The “Condemned” sign was still hanging on the door. He looked in the tax assessor’s roll and found the owner, who lived in Southern California. He called them, made an appointment, visited them and left with an agreement to buy the house and property.

Back at the house, he replaced fallen plaster with sheetrock, dozens of broken windows, water heater, submersible well pump, cleaned the cistern for water storage, sanded and varnished floors, painted or papered walls, and rewired some of the electrical system, which had been installed in the house long after it was first built in 1929.

Being otherwise self-sufficient, he needed only to get the electricity turn on to make the now restored house a home.

He called the electric company and told them that he needed to get the electricity turned on. When the man arrived to turn the electricity on, he asked for the building permit. The Veteran said, “I don’t have a building permit. I’ve only restored that which was.”

“Well, do you have anything from the electrician who did the work?”

“I’m not an electrician, but I did the work.”

‘Well, you are supposed to have a building permit and it is supposed to be signed off by a certified electrician.” As the electric company man was saying this, he was looking in the master electric panel. He then said, “Well, the work looks good, and, since you are going to be living here, I’ll go ahead and turn the electricity on.” which he did.

It seemed that there was a commercial tie to getting electricity in a house. Building permit, certified electrician, all of this just so he could turn his lights on? Would the government rather he live without electricity — for his own safety?

So, how does this work? Well, if you contract any portion of the house to be built by someone else, the state has ‘regulated’ their trade — for your safety. In that regulation, they have told him that he will lose his license if he does work without the proper permits.

Then, they tell all of the utility companies that they have to ascertain that there was a building permit and that any work performed under the permit has to have been done, and signed off by a licensed professional, or the utility services cannot be turned on — or, the utility company will lose its license.

As with Prohibition, the government cannot act on us, but can act on commercial entities. Once you have submitted an application for the building permit (remember Ashwander), you are bound by the rules of that agency. You have ‘volunteered’ to seek a benefit. And, you have been force to volunteer because the commercial enterprises have been coerced into participation of the game that denies you their services unless you have the permit.

To add insult to injury, once the Building Permit is completed and signed off, the agency acknowledges that you have improved your property, and increases, based upon your ‘admission’, the value of the property tax assessment.

Borders

What is an illegal immigrant?

The Immigration and Nationality Act prohibits non-nationals from entering, or attempting to enter the United States at any time or place that has not been designated by an immigration officer. It also prohibits non-nationals from eluding immigration officers. Inspection and/or authorization are required for entry.

The U. S. Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, and its mobile division, The U. S. Border Patrol are responsible for apprehending individuals attempting to enter the United States illegally.

Even with these laws and agencies, it is estimated that over one-half million illegals enter the United States, each year.

There are three types of illegal immigrants: 1) entering without authorization and inspection; 2) staying beyond the authorized period for entry; and, 3) violating the requirements for legal entry. The first type accounts for over half of the illegal immigrants in this country.

Who enforces immigration laws?

Illegal immigration is classed as a misdemeanor and subjects the person to extradition.

Under The United States Code, Title 8, Section 1103, the Powers and Duties of the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General of the United States have the authority to extradite illegal immigrants

There are an estimated 13 million illegal immigrants

Since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has over 60 agencies within its department, with over 179 thousand employees and a budget in excess of $28 billion, it is difficult to understand why the growth in numbers of illegal immigrants in this country continues to climb.

It has become apparent that the DHS is not interested in supporting local law enforcement in attempting to stem the flow of illegals or to identify them for extradition. In fact, there are a number of large cities in the United States that have enacted laws protecting illegal immigrants within their boundaries (Haven Cites).

Not only illegal immigrants, who flood the job market, even though they are criminals by being here, but drugs, weapons and possible terrorists, with intentions of death and destruction, are nearly guaranteed entry because of the negligence of the DHS and other responsible agencies.

The abrogation of their responsibility, under the law, creates risk to the citizens of this country, and provides a welcome mat for the continuation of illegal border crossings.

Often, employers are charged with a crime for employing illegal immigrants. The government and the agencies assigned to protect the borders, however, are immune from consideration of their failure to enforce the law of the land.

Though there are many causes for concern over what is happening in this country, only a few have been addressed, here. Surely, your concerns would fit into the above descriptions as nicely as those that have been included.

The Nature of Government

Returning to John Locke, and his philosophy of self-government, that which the Founding Fathers modeled much of the founding of this nation after, is worthy of understanding, if we are to know enough about our government to understand what is necessary to return it to its proper role.

Dissolution of government

We begin with the question, can government be dissolved?

Governments can be dissolved by a number of means. What history shows us, as the most common, was forceful encroachment by a conquering Army. The effect was dissolution of the government and subsequent dissolution of the society, for every nation is composed of both government and society. Generally, under these circumstances, society was disrupted and scattered to the winds. This form of dissolution has not existed for quite some time.

Another form is when an enemy force dissolves government, and replaces that government with a government of their own choosing. The result, in this instance, is dissolution of government by non-violent means, and subsequent dissolution of the society, which is replaced, through a slow transitional process, by a society unlike the one that was the source of the original government. We must not assume, in this circumstance, that the dissolution of government will, necessarily, take a forceful effort. The likelihood, in modern times, is that the dissolution of the government and subsequent dissolution of society will go unnoticed until history is revised and the transition is lost from existence, without a notice of its demise.

If the form of government within a nation has any form of representative capacity, the means by which dissolution may occur will take one of three forms. First, the executive may begin to arbitrarily impose his will on the elected representatives and the people. Slowly the rule of law deviates from its original intent, and slowly the dissolution process occurs.

There is also dissolution of government by delivery of the people to the influence of a foreign power. Eventually, the legislative body finds themselves subjected to a set of rules not of their making, but to which they must adhere, which, again, results in the demise of the government, as was originally intended, and the society as it becomes subject to that foreign power.

Finally, there is dissolution when the trust bestowed upon the existing government is betrayed, by whatever means. That trust, generally in the form of a constitution, forms a set of rules by which the government is empowered, with the belief that it will abide by such contract. Faith is necessary because there is a need to pass power to government so that it can conduct its business thus the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution). When that power is directed in violation of the trust, ultimately it will be used to dissolve the society. The question here is, is the government dissolved as well? That answer shall be forthcoming.

How is a government dissolved?

Governments, of the nature of legislative authority, are created by, and subject to the will of the people. They are creatures of the will of the people, and their purpose for existence is only to protect the rights of the people, to the extent delegated, for the preservation of property and the protection of the life and liberty of the people. There is no other purpose for government whose authority is from the people, than the preservation and protection of the People’s lives, rights and property.

Once it is recognized that government has begun to deviate from its intended purpose, and the delivery to a foreign power is apparent, the people are more likely to presume that there is nothing that can be done to change that course. Many will accept that those chosen to legislate and administer are far wiser than they are, and willingly subject themselves to the change that results in the conversion and dissolution.

Within any society, it is far easier, especially so long as there is sufficient bread on the table, to allow the trend to continue, accepting that this is the evolution of government as it should be. Little do they recognize that what they are experiencing is tyranny in the same form that has imposed itself upon people throughout history. The despotic nature of government will advise them that they are freemen while they are, at the same time, wrapping the chains of slavery gently around their lives. This is a form of mockery that is little understood by most. What is understood even less is that they not only have the right to get out of it, but to prevent it.

The protection of property being the most significant purpose of government, the power given to government must be limited to preclude any theft of property. When government, in an artful and crafty manner, begins the slow and meticulous theft of the property of the people, it has violated the sacred trust granted to it at its inception. Regardless of whether that theft is direct, or indirect, the outcome will be the same.

Government, then, when it does begin this process of conversion (dissolution of the intended government), has breached the trust of the people. The people, however, have not lost their right to the fundamental liberties, for the preservation of which the government was first formed. Instead, they have a responsibility to revise that form of government, to correct the errors and to rewrite the contract to provide for the protection of the property and the rights of the people to be secured.

Government imposed  dissolution?

What can be done to prevent this form of dissolution? Surely, a resort to the force of arms against those who have been granted the authority to use force of arms in the preservation of property is not an easily undertaken measure. What would rouse the people to return their government to that place and to those ends for which it was first erected?

Rebellion is the term that applies to those who seek to dissolve government, and society, from within. The determination of who the rebels, the usurpers, truly are is the question that must first be asked. If the government has drifted from the course first intended, and, after due notice, continues to deviate even further therefrom, and in that process imposes force of arms against the very people it was created to protect — then that government, and all within it, have become the rebels, they are the ones that have sought to undo that which was first intended, and they are the ones that have resorted to armed force to impose their will upon the people. It is they who are guilty of rebellion. It is they who have created a state of war.

Who is it that would suggest to the populace that any who would denounce the actions of government, under the circumstances presented, as being the rebels? Those very people who had been selected as our representatives for the purpose of protection of property would proclaim that those who have found the need to protect their own fortunes are the usurpers, the “rebels”. They would denounce them and accuse them of crimes against the state and against the people themselves. They would argue that these rebels must be subdued. Yet, who are the pirates, the robbers, and the thieves?

If the innocent, honest man must quietly quit all he has for the sake of peace — to those that would impose violence upon him for protecting his own property, what kind of peace will we be subjecting ourselves to? Violence would be maintained only for the protection of the robbers and oppressors.

The end of government is for the good of mankind, and what is best for mankind is that they not be subjected to this form of tyranny. The duty of government is to resist these evils, and protect the people from them. The exorbitant use of government’s power, when used for the destruction of that very society, and not for the preservation of the property of the people, is the worst form of tyranny that can befall mankind, for it came of trust, and results in slavery.

When does one act to stop the tyranny?

Most of the people will not be willing to believe all accusations made by those who proclaim the evils of government. Those who first recognize the tyranny will be scorned. When only a few stir against this tyranny, they are looked upon as mischievous, and, likely to seek their own ruin.

Until the design of the despots has become apparent to a sufficient number, the greater numbers will be content to suffer rather than to right themselves by resistance to tyranny. Who, then, assumes responsibility to correct the problem before the goal of dissolution of both government and society has been achieved?

That determination is not one for earthly consideration. Simply, if the matter were cast before a court of the government, the ruling, without question, would be that those who support the dissolution are mistaken in their thoughts, and criminal in their nature. Under these circumstances, the course is set, and the goal of tyranny will be achieved. Those who oppose the course of government are incarcerated, or killed.

The only recourse that can allow a just consideration of action is the ruler of the universe, who speaks to each individually, but sets no mandate from which we can seek guidance. The judgment will come, not in our lifetimes, but when the final determination as to our destiny is made. History will tell a story and the evidence of the actions must stand on the merit of the arguments presented and to the actions taken.

History is as likely to condemn those who sat idly by as to look favorably upon those who sought to restore the institutions for which they have cast their lot for the protection of their property. Each of us must make his own decision as to what course must be taken, though we must remember that those who would usurp the faith and trust granted them are the worst criminals that can exist on the face of the earth, and should be treated accordingly — punishment for crimes committed not only serves as a deterrent for future occurrence, but is just reward for those that commit those crimes.

Whoever uses force without right, who does so without true law, puts himself in a state of war against those against whom he so uses it — and in this circumstance all former conditions of consideration cease to exist, all ties are canceled, all rights cease and each retains the right to defend himself as he sees fit, and to resist the aggressor. Moreover, he who resists, by the very nature of resistance, must be allowed to strike. Resistance only when backed into a corner is as cowardly as it is unsuccessful.

We all understand that an inferior cannot punish a superior, at least so long as he is the superior. When the state of war comes into existence, all former relations are canceled, and all respects and reverence for the superior ceases to exist. Since the original superior was the citizen who provided for the existence of government — for the preservation of property — that condition returns, and it is the superior who now comes forward to subdue the inferior, the usurper.

What then may happen that the people may, of right, and of their own authority, take up arms and set upon the government? Nothing can ever justify this form of action, for then, truly, the aggressor would be the rebel. Not, at least, so long as the government remains the government. The people can never come by power over the government unless the government ceases to be a government and divests itself of its authority. Only when the people must revert to the state of private man, and bear the responsibility for the protection of his own property can they become free and superior.

Each must judge for himself whether government continues to serve as government, or ceases to be that government to which his allegiance is owed. Each must resolve — in his own mind — in his own heart — and seek advice from heaven. Those who gave it can never remove the authority that each person gave as his share of the collective authority of government. It is the nature of community that requires that we all abide by that shared authority. Without that trust, that commitment, there can be no society, no commonwealth, no community, for that would be contrary to the original agreement, and a violation of the trust of our neighbors. The government can never revert to the people while the government lasts, nor should it divest itself of that authority. It is assumed that government will last forever, for that is the purpose for which it was first created.

When the miscarriages of those in authority have achieved a point so far removed from the original purpose, the government has forfeited its existence, and upon forfeiture, divests itself, and returns to each of us his respective share of the cumulative authority. Government reverts to society and the people have the right to act as the supreme, to continue to legislate as they see fit — to erect a new form, or to repair the old, assuring that what has been learned has also been corrected. It is that state that we are currently in.

What can we do to restore the Constitution

Disobey the Constitution – as Lincoln did

Abraham Lincoln felt no compunction when he decided to ignore the Constitution to save the Union. Perhaps we need to enter our venture to restore the Constitution with the same sense of necessity. The Constitution sets out safeguards to protect us from government. The government has failed to abide by the Constitution, The Constitution sets forth what the government is. It is that portion of the Constitution that we need to consider, in its present administration. Is it complying with the dictates of the Constitution in the performance of its duties?

If not, are we bound to recognize it as the lawful government of the United States of America? Though it may be the legal (de facto) government, is it the lawful (de jure) government? If it is the latter, then there is nothing that can be done, it is in compliance with the Constitution. However, if it is the former, then it is, without doubt, the usurper of power that was never intended to be within its authority.

The Constitution still stands, but absent the government instituted by the Constitution, we have little choice but to regress to the Declaration of Independence, and regain the lawful government by the means outlined by the Founding Fathers — to regain the rights of Englishmen (Americans).

Suspend judicial process

How can this be accomplished when we realize that the judicial system has become a major player in the commandeering of power beyond the scope envisioned by the Founding Fathers?

We must consider the judicial process as suspended. That no judicial action regarding any and all efforts to regain a Constitutional government is valid and of force. This would mean that any who attempt to enforce judicial actions is outside of the law (constitutional), because the Court is acting outside of the law. During the War of Independence, all civil matters were suspended and only criminal actions heard, if conditions allowed. Those with enmity toward the cause were jailed, and had their arms taken from them. Their property could become forfeit, if their actions were such as to be destructive of the cause.

Committees of Safety were empowered by their communities to deal with judicial matters, when necessary. There is no reason to believe that this expedient could not be restored.

The circumstances as they existed then, and as they exist, now.

We need to look at the playing field that exists, today. It is not like that which the Founding Fathers played upon.

Then. there were spies and informants. Dr. Benjamin Church was a member of the Massachusetts Committee of Safety and on the examining board for surgeons, for the army. He was also a spy for General Gage of the British Army. He was found out and removed to Connecticut, and later released to sail for the West Indies.

Other spies roamed the countryside gathering information for the Crown.

Messages, back then, had to be transmitted with paper and ink. Even with code and disappearing ink, evidence was usually easily found, once suspicions were aroused.

Today, with electronic bugs, cell phones, and countless other electronic devices, transmission of information was considerably easier, and safer, then.

Informants that have infiltrated groups have been known to be the prime motivator of illegal activity; entrapping their fellow members and testifying against them (consider the suspension of judicial process, above).

Long-range eavesdropping equipment and long range visual capabilities provide even greater risk to endeavors that might have been easier for the colonists.

Though acts of violence, some resulting in deaths, and acts of destruction of property, were not uncommon, they were not looked upon with distain, as they are now.

We need to look at the playing field and determine that it cannot be allowed to defeat us, by its nature. Improvising and adapting are necessary to be able to play on the field.

Where does this all lead to?

The Process

A question was raised, the other day, in a conversation. The question was, “Could a Revolution be conducted in the modern world considering modern technology, extensive government troops, and battle field weapons?” At first thought, the task seems so ominous, so daunting and against such odds, that it would be impractical, if not impossible.

Upon reflecting on what must have been equally daunting to the Founding Fathers, it is not, as first anticipated, such an ominous task,

The Founding Fathers faced British forces — the best-trained and most successful military in the then world. Its navies were masters of the seas; its land forces had recently defeated the French and had forced colonization around the world. It controlled the local government, and had enacted laws that gave it nearly arbitrary control over the colonies. The colonies had few things working for them. They had a lack of experience, except those who had recently fought alongside the British in the French-Indian Wars; They had to defend themselves against hostile Indians, and thus learned certain tactics used by the Indians; They had local knowledge of the topography; and, They had the fortitude and persistence that had helped their forefathers, and themselves, overcome the obstacles of taming a land which had been little changed from its natural state.

Against them were: numbers of highly trained soldiers; unlimited supplies and resources, although many of them were located across the ocean and had to be transported; a multitude of locations, bases, within and around the colonies, mastery of the waterways; and, many of the leaders had experience both with fighting Indians and working alongside the colonists.

In those first eventful days of April, May and June 1775, the colonists learned what their weaknesses were and what some of their strengths were. They learned that they were not trained, nor were they inclined to fight face to face on the battlefield. They learned that the tactics of the Indians, ambush by surprise and hit and run tactics would damage both morale and manpower of the British. They learned that living to fight another day was more important than victory in a battle. One of the major drawbacks in their efforts was that of selecting officers who were astute enough to challenge the ways of traditional warfare.

But, they did, with the persistence and their faith in God, prevail — not by might, rather by tactics and fortitude.

Just how would they fight, today? Perhaps they learned that politics should have less to do with officer selection than the competence of the man who would be chosen to lead them into harm’s way. Surely, they would adapt their tactics to the ‘battlefield’ and would realize the political necessity of securing faith and assistance from the non-combatants. There are many other generalities that can be addressed, but of greater importance will be the actual circumstances of today’s world and the necessity to develop new tactics in order to overcome obstacles that present themselves, as the battle begins

The Beginning

Open confrontation would be out of the question. A degree of psychological warfare would probably serve best at the onset. Small teams composed of people who have known each other for years and who have never been charged with a crime would provide the best security. — since plea agreements would be a logical means to force infiltration or of gaining an informant — Communication between various teams should be limited and comparable to the information of those within a single team. The more you know, the more you can give up, if caught.

Joint operations can be conducted with two or more teams participating, and can lead to bigger, better and more successful operations.

Each team should have at least one person whose job includes dissemination of information about targets. Targets can be objects or individuals, though any target should have obvious and describable characteristics, which can be publicized.

Developing sympathetic focal points within the press is very important and information should be provided as soon as possible following an event, substantiating the necessity of the action taken. This would result in minimizing the government/press’ ability to demonize your cause; For example, a police officer know to abuse people, whether prisoners, or civilian, is a likely target and one which sympathy for the action can be developed; A building that is used primarily for government communication can be disruptive of the government’s efforts to conduct unconstitutional operations.

However, there will never be a single target that can develop sympathetic reactions from all of the public, there are thousands of targets that can result in a neutral if not a positive effect on a portion thereof. In target justification, your actions can never be random, nor can they be indiscriminant. Always maintaining a higher moral ground than that of the government will enhance your ability to sway people to the cause.

As styles and tactics are developed, they can be shared with others — to enhance their operations. As public knowledge of what is occurring grows, more people who have concerns about government will realize that they will soon have to decide which side they are on.

What characteristics should a target have to be justified? Many people in positions of power or authority are among those who support the continuation toward tyranny in this country. If allegations exist that demonstrate a possible pattern to the actions of someone, then there is potential for that person to be targeted. If a person holds a position that is among those that will be utilized to ‘enforce’ the edicts of government, they are front line soldiers in the war against the New Patriots. However, attacking them without some ‘dirt’ that can be exploited carries a risk of disenfranchisement of some of the people. If these people are targeted, it is best to catch them in an act that demonstrates the need to deal with them — such as making an unwarranted or ridiculous arrest of, or seizing property without a warrant.

What structures are potential targets? Many insurance companies have reneged on their obligation to compensate policyholders for losses. This is especially true of homeowners insurance companies that have failed to make whole the people who suffered from natural disasters, or opted out of their responsibility and encouraged the government to take the responsibility off their backs. There are communications facilities (long lines systems; microwave communications, etc.) that are targets that will have disruptive effects on the governments communications. Though this will also impact the public to some degree, the effect on government will be substantial and may be well worth the effort, if properly targeted.

Power is a necessary element for all of our lives, but even more so for the operation of government. Hospitals have back up power generations systems, as do most government facilities. If a power system that supports a government facility is to be targeted, it is probably more effective to take out their emergency system, first. When targeting power systems, the most desirable target is the transformer stations. Generating plants have standby generators, and can be readily replaced. Transformers are much more difficult to replace; each incident will reduce the availability of replacement transformers. Transformer sub-stations can be targeted based upon them providing service to government or other targeted operations, minimizing the effect on the public. At this point, transformer stations are relatively unsecured. Because they generate massive amounts of heat, they are set in arrays and enclosed, usually, only by security fencing.

Buildings, themselves, if they are headquarters for agencies, corporations are other entities that can be identified as oppressive, are good targets. Take heed from the misunderstandings in Oklahoma City, that they should be targeted for minimal loss of life.

Other possible targets would be those who have questionable practices that have been accepted as American for over a hundred years and have filed lawsuits to remove crosses, the Ten Commandments, Nativity displays and other Americana from public places.

Advocates of immorality, contrary to the morality that has been recognized by this country for nearly two centuries, might also be targeted.

What will be the effects of this Beginning effort?

Many who have jobs solely because they pay well, provide great benefits, give them authority to assert themselves, or are just plain immoral to begin with, are peopled by individuals that are inclined to take any job which provides them a comfortable existence and a regular paycheck. Generally, those jobs are either without risk, or the odds are stacked in their favor, if elements of risk might arise. What happens if all of a sudden unanticipated risk creeps in to be a part of the job description? The greater the degree of risk, the sooner that person will find another place to work. If those positions cannot be readily filled, they begin having an impact on the reliance on that part of the system by the government.

The same is true in many of the businesses that are supportive of government actions, or otherwise potential targets. Even if there was no risk to life, the fact that the ‘office’ is no longer there will cause the employees to reconsider the benefits of working for that company. What if, the next time, the building isn’t empty, they ask themselves. As the risk increases, the availability of workers diminishes. It will not take long before that business is not operating as usual.

During this entire phase, the Beginning, operations should continue, as practicality and safety allow. Every event should have information disseminated so that the explanation behind each target can be justified, at least to some degree, in the eyes of the public. The government, in outrage over what is happening, is more likely to assert brutality, whenever they think that they have captured a person or people they believe are ‘perpetrators’.

As public anxiety over events increases, the media coverage will also increase. It will be necessary for both targeting events and retaliations by government to be disseminated, as widely as possible. Find your line of communication, and keep it flowing. Those in the communications lines should follow how the information goes out into the mainstream. If it is twisted toward the unfavorable, the line that is being fed the information should be reconsidered. What you get out of what you do is totally under your control. Make the best if it.

Some Obstacles in the Beginning

In most cases, there are things that must be dealt with before any activity takes place. One obstacle will be knowledge as to where the tens of thousands of cameras are located. If your people are properly disguised, and identification of vehicles is obscured this may not pose a problem. It doesn’t hurt to begin anticipating being tracked, even in a disguised vehicle, by those many cameras. Some cameras can be destroyed, or temporarily disabled with a red laser. The problem is, you have to be in the line of sight of the camera to be able to have an effect on the electronics. Another option is a well-sighted 22-caliber rifle. A long rifle bullet may be sufficient, in most cases, though magnum loads might be more reliable for the desired destruction of the camera. This can be done from any position where a clear view of the camera can be had. In normal daytime activity, chances of the shot being heard and identified as a rifle shot are very slim. Since most of the cameras are now radio operated, destruction of the camera is the only solution. There are no wires to cut.

There is always the possibility that someone will be identified during an operation. Or, there may be something in his past that has made him a “person of interest” and subject to ‘detention’. If you are aware of the possibility of one of these occurrences, it might be wise to take advantage of the situation, even if it means spending weeks in an ambush mode. If you can anticipate their avenue of approach, where they would be likely to set up a command area, where they would be likely to store equipment and park vehicles, you might have the upper hand. You need to understand, as in all military tactics, that they may anticipate such an action. Your planning has to be made with that in consideration. When one side thinks that it is superior to the other side, it is more prone to mistakes than the side that recognizes that it needs to make itself superior.

If the SWAT team cannot get out of their truck (alive), they cannot be an opposing force.

Expansion of the effort

As the New Patriot organizations increase in size and competence, they will increase their ability to conduct larger operations. Small armies of New Patriots can encircle and force surrender of government bodies of armed men (police, sheriffs, National Guard, and military bases), forcing surrender, and then administering loyalty oaths or incarceration.

Over time, the ease of operation will become greater and greater. Still larger operations can be planned and carried out. Like a transfusion, new lifeblood will flow into the Constitution and the Great Experiment, which began in 1788.

Nationalizing the effort

As the first phase continues, a network of active New Patriots will communicate over broader areas, bringing communication into a larger network, as time goes on. During these early stages, many who are not in complete sympathy with the Rebel cause will expose themselves and be removed from the system. As the New Patriot successes blossom, more will join the cause. Eventually, semblances of state governments (Committees of Safety) will appear in the underground level. Current politicians sympathetic to the cause, will leave their government positions and adhere themselves to the New Patriot side. Similarly, members of the establishment press will see the writing on the wall, and opt out of their current obligations to promote the cause of the New Patriots.

As the network enlarges, the means of conducting even larger operations will present itself. Slowly, as did during the American Revolution, the balance of power will shift away from the usurpers and pass to the New Patriots. They will be able to operate more openly, and will be able to convene for conducting the common business.

The will also be able to reach out to other countries in the world and seek assistance in the form of financing and equipment, perhaps even soldiers, navies and air force capabilities. Can you imagine how many countries would love to see the current US government displaced? France and Spain sure were desirous of seeing the British government displaced in 18th century America.

As local groups reach out and communicate with other groups, a form of underground government will evolve. A network will establish itself much as the Founding Fathers did, and each state will re-establish itself with a true (not corporate) government of the people.

It is quite possible that fear, by those who have usurped authority, unwarranted by the people or the Constitution, will flee, as Tories did during the Revolution. Eventually, they will be displaced, whether by flight, or by indictment for crimes committed and trial by a jury comprised of people who have taken an oath of loyalty to the true United States of America.

The strength of the effort, as it grows in popular support and acceptance by true Americans, will begin a scourge of those who had held power. Once displaced, their positions will be filled by those chosen by the people, and not filtered through political party structures.

The future of the United States of America, is in your hands

Given the understanding of the real circumstances of the country that we live in, today; can there be any doubt that something needs to be done to correct the problem?

Consideration should always be given to peaceful means of resolution. However, when those means are effectively removed from the means of achieving results, are we forever committed to beat our heads against an impenetrable wall?

We can continue to demonstrate our displeasure with government by marching in the streets. This will give us a sense of doing something, but, as we can see by the past, it will effect no change in the course that the government has set.

We can support candidates of our choice, but if they are of one of the two political parties, they have earned their position by obedience to the party, not to the people.

If it is a candidate of another nature, then there is hope, though the odds are against election, However, if he were to succeed in getting elected, he would be just one voice screaming in the darkness of that pit called Congress. And, though you might hear him screaming, those in Washington will not even flinch for the noise that he makes.

What choice do we have that has any chance, whatsoever, of success? Is there anything that can be proposed which might have even a slight chance of success?

The Tea Party of Boston was an element in the revolution. It is time to understand that the revolution is over, and, that the time has come for the action that follows that change in thought. That is the action that brings about change. It is not irresolution; rather, it is an absolute commitment to do our duty, in accordance, not with the Constitution, but with the Declaration of Independence.

Mice? or Men?

The Boston Committee of Correspondence met at Faneuil Hall on the evening of June 27, 1774. Samuel Adams was elected moderator, but stood down from his position after a Tory announced that Boston should censure the committee. The British had begun raising their complement in Boston, and the Committee, just a few weeks earlier, had approved sending a delegation to what would become known as the First Continental Congress.

“A Grecian philosopher,” Adams said, “who was lying asleep upon the grass, was aroused by the bite of some animal upon the palm of his hand. He closed his hand suddenly as he woke and found that he had caught a field mouse. As he was examining the little animal who dared to attack him, it unexpectedly bit him a second time, and made its escape.”

“Now, fellow citizens,” he continued, “what think you was the reflection he made upon this trifling circumstance? It was this: that there is no animal, however weak and contemptible, which cannot defend its own liberty,

if it will only fight for it.

 

Download a PDF version of this article: Unlike any other Government (PDF)

 

Finding Freedom Again

Gary Hunt
March 23, 2010

[Note: I wish to gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by Trey Tasker in ordering the information contained herein in a manner much more conducive to the purpose of the article.. G.H.)

Freedom!  What a wonderful word.  It brings forth visions of flags, eagles, and other inspiring symbols, and it is something that we have heard, all of our lives.  However, can we tie it down?  Can we fully comprehend that which made so many, over nearly two and a half centuries, willing to lay down their lives to defend?

We have all watched as a newborn baby went through the first stages of life.  We watch him grow, every day of his life.  We look, again, at the child, after a few years, and realize that he has changed.  He no longer wears diapers, he walks quite well, speaks very good English, writes, sings, and so many other things.  During the course of the years, we have not noticed the subtle changes, daily occurring, that have moved this once helpless infant into, of all things, a grown man.

There is another side of life, as well.  We have watched our parents, since our infancy, and only occasionally do we take a moment to notice how they have grown old and feeble, their bodies slowly wasting away from the youth that we remember, and achieving the stature of the aged.

Only when we take the time to sit and contemplate, do we realize that, with the passage of time, things do change.  Those changes are gradual, and, nearly imperceptible, on a day-to-day basis.  However, they do occur, and, they do accumulate — eventually, to the point that they would be almost unrecognizable, except for minor characteristics that are simply vestiges of the past. 

As it is with aging, it is also the case with the erosion of our freedoms.  It is quite probable that our founding fathers would examine the circumstance of our freedoms today and conclude that we have, indeed, given them up, and that we are immersed too far in the trees to see the forest.

The remainder of this discussion offers numerous examples of ways in which our freedoms have been eroded with the passage of time.  Since we cannot regain what we fail to see as lost, it is my sincerest hope that this discussion provides the reader a sense of what has been lost so that we can commit ourselves to finding freedom again.

The Meaning of Freedom

Perhaps a dozen years ago, I asked my son, then a teenager at the time, what ‘freedom’ was.  He responded that it was the ‘freedom’ to go down to the convenience store, at any time, to hang out with his friends.

This is the same son who, many years ago, I promised to myself that I would seek a life for him that was as full of freedom as my juvenile years were.  However, somewhere, during the course of making a family, moving myself upward to my career, acquiring management skills, and, finally, operating my own business, I had lost sight of that promise that I had made to us both, for my son and to myself. 

Since that rude awakening, I have endeavored to deliver on that promise.  In fact, in the course of study of what happened to those freedoms that were so common in my youth, but have since become nearly as extinct as the dinosaurs, I learned not only that they had been lost, but also that there were many that were lost long before I was even born.

The foundation required for understanding freedom must first be put into the perspective of the proper role of government.

Government’s purpose is to provide such services that we could provide to ourselves, though, as a community, makes more sense to be provided by our government. These services, for example, would include roadways. There is no doubt that our own driveway is our responsibility — to be built and maintained at our own expense or effort. But, what of the roadway that connects our driveway to the other driveways of the community? It, obviously, should not be the responsibility of one, but rather, of those who benefit by its existence. So, the community builds and maintains the roadways that connect the driveways.

Now, each community would be isolated from other communities if there were not even more roadways connecting this community to the other communities. Beyond that, there are others areas and regions which need be connected, until there is  national network of roadways whereby one from any community is able to travel on roadways to any other home in any other community. Each higher level of government only necessary for the construction and maintenance of those roadways that are necessary to connect the roads of the next lower entity.

Though roads are used in this example, there are many other aspects which fall into such necessity. Commerce, for example, must be provided for, and controlled, only to the extent necessary to assure that goods which are not locally available can be made available to members of any of the communities within the nation. It is the availability, not the prohibition of, that the Founding Fathers addressed when they granted to authority to the national government to “regulate commerce”. This provision was never intended to restrict or prohibit the availability of goods from one part of the country to another, for, to do so would surely be a restriction of the rights of those who were denied access, where they were, to goods that were produced elsewhere.

Common Defense and Foreign Relations, too, are the responsibility of higher government, though they should not be a restriction on our freedoms, except to protect us, and our freedoms, from assault by foreign powers.

Fundamentally, when “We the People” created the national (and state’s) government, we granted to them what authority we had, individually and collectively, to perform duties, in that collective capacity, that we had every right to perform on our own. We could not give to government that which we did not possess ourselves, for we had not that to grant. Since we have no ability to create rights for others, they government, likewise, cannot create rights which would impinge upon those rights that we do possess. Once a “right” (or freedom) is given to one, such that it has the effect of a detriment to another, it cannot be classified as a right (or freedom) that could be granted by us, or by the government that we brought into being.

To understand Freedom, we must first understand what Freedom means, and which, if more than one definition is appropriate, is the one that those, so long ago, were first willing to give their lives for.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, we find:

Freedom: The state of the exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement.  Freedom is personal, civil, political, and religious.

Since “liberty” is included in the definition, here is what the same source provides for that term:

Liberty: freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind.  The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled.  A man enjoys his liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature.  It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life.  This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

Civil liberty, is the liberty of man in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation.  A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression.  Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another.  Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

One other source worthy of inclusion is from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition:

Freedom: The state of being free; liberty; self-determination; absence of restraint; the opposite of slavery.

The power of acting, in the character of a moral personality, according to the dictates of the will, without other check, hindrance, or probation than such as may be imposed by a just and necessary law and the duties of social life.

The prevalence, in the government and constitution of a country, of such a system of laws and institutions as secure civil liberty to the individual citizen.

Here, again, “liberty” is made a part of the definition:

Liberty: freedoms; exemption from extraneous control.  Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law.  Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of the same rights by others; freedom regulated by law.  The absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interest of the community.

“The power of the will to follow the dictates of its unrestricted choice, and to direct the external facts of the individual without restraint, coercion, or control from other persons.”  See Booth v. Illinois, 184 US 425 (1902)

From these definitions, we can get an idea of what, in the past, was considered to be the inalienable right (freedom or liberty) that is protected by the Constitution.  In fact, it would appear that Freedom and Liberty are nearly synonymous, and will be used in that context throughout this discussion.

Now, the entire quotation from Booth v. Illinois:

“[T]hat … liberty … ‘means, not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary, and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned.’ “

The effect of the decision was to overturn a law that had been passed, in the State of Illinois, which forbade options in the grain market.

Was a state law overturned in favor of the individual right to offer to buy, at a future date, grain, at a certain price?  Absolutely.  State law cannot deny rights, or liberties, of its citizens, even if enacted by the Legislature (this, too, would apply to federal legislation).

This decision clearly sets the distinction between what is “legal” and what is “lawful” The Court determined that though “legal” under Illinois’s laws, was “unlawful” in that it was a constraint upon the liberties of the people.

This leads us to another definition:

From Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition

Lawful.  Legal; warranted or authorized by the law; having the qualifications prescribed by law; not contrary to or forbidden by the law.

The principal distinction between the terms “lawful” and “legal” is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law.  To say of an act that it is “lawful” implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law.  To say that it is “legal” implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner.  In this sense “illegal” approaches the meaning of “invalid.”  For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful.  Further, the word “lawful” more clearly implies an ethical content than does “legal.”  The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility.  A further distinction is that the word “legal” is used as the synonym of “constructive,” which “lawful” is not.  Thus “legal fraud” is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction.  “Lawful fraud” would be a contradiction in terms.  Again, “legal” is used as the antithesis of “equitable.”  Thus, we speak of “legal assets,” “legal estate,” etc., but not of “lawful assets,” or “lawful estate.”  But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents.  Thus, a “lawful” writ, warrant, or process is the same as a “legal” writ, warrant, or process.

As you proceed through the rest of this discussion, keep in mind that there is a subtle difference between “lawful”, being the substance of law; moral or ethical permissibility, and, “legal”, being the form of law; compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules.  Consider whether laws (rules) have not been used to undermine the intentions of the Constitution (moral and ethical).

What it boils down to is “no harm, no foul”, or, probably more properly put, that there is no crime unless another party is injured.

How Checks and Balances Protect Freedom 

The Constitution was written very carefully, with checks and balances to prevent our freedoms from being eroded.  First, we will consider a freedom that was lost by a legal amendment to the Constitution and later was restored in two steps, first by the jury system and later by repeal of the amendment.  Second, we will consider an unlawful arrest and how the appeals process restored one man’s freedom.  Finally, we will review how our protections to unlawful arrest have eroded.

Suppose the government wanted to pass a law making a crime out of an activity that caused no direct harm to others.  Well, first, since that activity would be considered lawful, absent a law to the contrary, and, since the Constitution prohibits denial of those rights, or liberties, it would require a change in the Constitution.

This very situation has indeed occurred.  In 1919, and Amendment to the Constitution (18th Amendment – Prohibition), which  provided that “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

This was the only means of imposing such a law on the people; however, if you will note, it does not apply to individual possession, which would be an extension of federal authority that acted on the people, themselves.  That would be beyond the accepted scope of federal authority.

States, however, bound by the Constitution, were obliged to allow the federal government to run, roughshod, over the states, and their citizens, in the federal effort to achieve a degree of social engineering (telling us what was acceptable, and, what was not acceptable), which contradicted the concepts of liberty before this time.

Until Prohibition, each county was able to determine what the will of its citizens was, and to pass moral laws that those citizens were desirous of having so that the community supported their collective morality.

So, what happened to Prohibition?  Well, fortunately, our system of government has many safeguards against abuse by the government.  Probably the most significant is the fact that juries are the final arbiters of the will of the people.  Their inherent right to judge both fact (what happened, based upon the evidence) and law (is this law one which we, the people, believe to be consistent with our will?) came in to play.  Many juries refused to convict those charged with violating laws enacted under the authority of the 18th Amendment.  As time went on, more and more juries followed this approach.  Finally, in 1933, the 18th Amendment was repealed by the ratification of the 21st Amendment to the Constitution.

One more noteworthy case warrants our consideration, if we are to understand what Liberty truly is.  That case evolved from an incident that occurred in 1899 [John Bad Elk v. US, 177 U.S. 529 (1900)], but, let us let the Court tell us what happened (emphasis, mine):

That John Bad Elk, “while out of doors, fired a couple of shots from his gun at or near the place where he resided.  Soon after the firing, one Captain Gleason, …asked him if he had done that shooting, and he said that he had; that ‘he had shot into the air for fun;’ to which Gleason responded by saying to him, ‘Come around to the office in a little while, and we will talk the matter over.’  Thereupon they separated.  As he [John Bad Elk] did not come to the office, Gleason, after waiting several days, gave verbal orders to three … policemen to go and arrest [John Bad Elk] … No reason for making the arrest was given, nor any charge made against him.  The policemen, one of whom was the deceased, went to the house where the [John Bad Elk] was stopping, and came back and reported to Gleason that he was not there, and they were then ordered to return and wait for him and to arrest him.  They returned to the house, but came back again and reported that the [John Bad Elk] said that he would go with them … in the morning; that it was too late to go with them that night.  Gleason then told them to watch him and see that he did not go away, and in the morning to [arrest him].

The policemen then again went back to the house where [John Bad Elk] was staying … He [John Bad Elk] went into the house, and one of their number followed him; found him smoking, and told him that they had come to take him to [arrest him].  [John Bad Elk] refused to go, and the policeman went outside.  Another of them then went into the house, and in a few minutes both he and [John Bad Elk] came out, and the latter saddled his horse and went over to the house of a friend, and they followed him.  It was getting dark when he came back to his mother’s house, still followed by them, and while following [John Bad Elk] to his house on this last occasion they were joined by others, so that when he went into the house there were four or five men standing about it.  In a short time [John Bad Elk] came out, and asked of those outside, ‘What are you here bothering me for?’  The deceased said: ‘Cousin, you are a policeman, and know what the rules and orders are.’  To [John Bad Elk] replied: ‘Yes; I know what the rules and orders are, but I told you I would go with you … in the morning.‘  Then, according to the evidence for the prosecution, [John Bad Elk], without further provocation, shot the deceased, who died within a few minutes.

There is an entire absence of any evidence of a complaint having been made before any magistrate or officer charging an offense against [John Bad Elk], and there is no proof that he had been guilty of any criminal offense, or that he had even violated any rule or … or that any warrant had been issued for his arrest.  On the contrary, Gleason swears that his orders to arrest [John Bad Elk] were not in writing, but given orally.  Indeed, it does not appear that Gleason had any authority even to entertain a complaint or to issue a warrant in any event.

At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter.  What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right.  So an officer, at common law, was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant, for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence.

The Court further ruled that the error of the charge to the jury was material and prejudicial, saying:

…  And yet the charge presented [John Bad Elk] to the jury as one having no right to make any resistance to an arrest by these officers, although he had been guilty of no offense, and it gave the jury to understand that the officers, in making the attempt, had the right to use all necessary force to overcome any and all opposition that might be made to the arrest, even to the extent of killing the individual whom they desired to take into their custody.  Instead of saying that plaintiff in error had the right to use such force as was absolutely necessary to resist an attempted illegal arrest, the jury were informed that the policemen had the right to use all necessary force to arrest him, and that he had no right to resist.  He, of course, had no right to unnecessarily injure, much less to kill, his assailant; but where the officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no such right.  What might be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been committed.

Before I comment on the ramifications of this case, I would like to point to a Texas State Law (Texas Penal Code) which clearly supports this conclusion.  Texas, understanding what the rights to liberty were, enacted a law, which reads:

§9.3.1(C) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer’s (or other person’s) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

So, clearly, both the Court, in the John Bad Elk case, and, the Texas Legislature, in the enactment of Section 9.3.1(C), realized that government could err — and, that we had an absolute RIGHT to protect both our property and our Liberty.

Perhaps this is demonstrative of Article V, Bill of Rights: “No person shall be held [arrested] to answer [go to court on the matter] for any capital [death penalty], or infamous [where sentence would be one year, or more, year in jail] crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury [made up of fellow citizens]…”

This also demonstrates that, as in the case of John Bad Elf, whether written (into law) or oral (judge’s instructions to the jury), if apparently “legal” still must also be “lawful”  And, is clearly set out in Texas Penal Code, which insists on the lawfulness of an arrest.

As shown above, in the past, we were not subject to immediate arrest, at the will of an officer.  Rather, only other citizens, performing their constitutional responsibility to sit as a Grand Jury, could authorize that arrest.

How does this comport with what we have been led to believe, today?  By various means, including, but not limited to, unlawful enactments, abuse of even presumed authority by law enforcement, arming of National Park Service, other agencies which have no reason to be armed, and, perhaps, with a high degree of participation of Hollywood, we have been led to believe that the police have an ultimate power, contrary to the supreme Court, to do whatever is necessary, even using force, or threat of force, to compel us to submit to what would appear to be unlawful (though, perhaps, legal) arrests — even to the point of killing unarmed people.

If we are to fully understand that our freedoms are not only in jeopardy, but we have been reduced to fright for even participating in a life that is alleged to be free.  This is best explained with a simple example:  Suppose you are driving down the street, and you know that you are not violating any laws.  Then, you notice that a police car has pulled in behind you, and is following you down the road.  What do you feel?  If you are like most of the people I have asked, their reaction is one of concern.  They will first look at their speedometer, then, start thinking, is there a light out on my car, or has my license plate fallen off?  Regardless, the significant emotion is one of impending consequences, unless and until the police car discontinues his course, following YOU down the street.

This is perhaps best described as a police state mentality.  It is not much different, though to a much lesser degree, than what was felt by those who lived in East Berlin, prior to the fall of the Berlin Wall.  It is, without a doubt, a feeling that should never even be experienced in a free country.

Incremental Erosion of Freedom

The ways in which our freedoms have been eroded over time are so numerous that there is no way to count them all.  For most of the remainder of this narrative, observations of eroded freedoms are grouped by the type of freedom being impinged – private activities, business activities, childhood activities, licensing of our rights, loss of the meaning of public, and corporate seizure of our rights.  At the end of this section, we will consider a true life example of the incrementalism that slowly bleeds our freedoms.

PRIVATE ACTIVITIES

It seems that the government has become the arbiter of how we buy and sell land, how we socialize, and how we raise our children.  How did this happen?

Private Contracts.  We will start with the right to dispose of our private property, in any way that we choose.  Historically, Covenants and Restrictions were, and continue to be, a part of the purchase of land.  In the past, they were the will of the seller, and were made, as he say most suitable, to create an environment that was conducive to the property.  The buyer, then, acknowledged, by purchasing the property, an agreement with the provisions of that contract (Covenants and Restrictions).  These might include no animals to be raised on the property; no abandoned vehicles to be stored on the property; only homes of over a defined square-footage may be constructed on the property; no property shall be resold to anyone other than the Caucasian race, etc.  These were binding, and they were enforceable, until around 1950.  Why?  Let’s look at Article I, Section 10, clause 1: “No State shall… pass any… Law impairing the Obligations of Contract”.  Our right to contract is, in fact, one of those freedoms.

Now, Covenants and Restrictions are, most often, required to contain certain provisions mandated by the government, rather than what the seller decides is most conducive to the property.  And, the race-related provision that was common to the older Covenants and Restrictions was deemed ‘unconstitutional’.  So, what stood for centuries is removed.  A right that you had, which would also be considered a right of association, was reduced to history, without a Constitutional Amendment to remove it.

Private Associations.  This encroachment of freedom has been expanded to affect your very right of association (with whom you please and without whom you don’t please) through private organizations and associations. The PGA Masters is a private association with private membership and engages in “invitation only” golf tournaments. The government has seen fit to enact laws and then intimidate the Masters to force them into opening their membership, effectively denying the members the right of association (a very basic freedom).

Whether you agree the right of association (race restrictions), you have to accept that it is a fundamental right. Though you may not think that those who wished to preserve those rights have the freedom to do so, any acceptance of the government’s authority to diminish, or remove, those freedoms is the authority, also, to begin removing your freedoms, when they can model them as unfair to someone else.  In order to put this in perspective, you need to understand that the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), after all of these years, has still denied membership to Caucasian applicants.  What other freedoms do you cherish that may be unpopular with others?

Parenting.  Discipline was a matter for parents to deal dispense.  Spanking was a known detriment to many activities that we partook practiced, knowing that they were, not necessarily against the law, but against the rules laid down by those same parents.  Nobody was surprised when this corporal punishment was administered.  It was expected, if we were caught.  Society chose not to involve itself in the business of family and child rearing.  After all, the parents are, in God’s eyes, responsible for progeny.  And, I am sure that, as I reflect back, those who were subject to such discipline faired far better in life than those who were not, though there are many admirable exceptions.  The duty and the consequences were upon the parent, not the “village”.

Through legislation at both state and federal levels, the child is now free from discipline by the parents, though the parents are still held responsible for the actions of the child.  If the child manages to secure credit, the parent is responsible for the debt.  If the parent disciplines the child, the parent can be held legally accountable for such action.  If the child wants certain ‘medical’ procedures, then the child can secure such procedure, and the law does not even allow that the parent can be notified.  The parent’s rights have been abridged to “responsibility, without commensurate authority”.  And, in the long term, many parents will have to suffer over the product of their procreation, in some cases with anguish, and will have do so knowing that they had so little to do restrictions on the upbringing of their own child.

Another loss of freedom, regarding your children, is the concept the child belongs to the parents.  Regardless of whether you agree with how another person raises their child, or not, God left that part of procreation to the parents of the child.  The early history of this country demonstrates a respect for that relationship.  The “age of majority” was the point in life when a child was able to leave the care of his parents and move out into the world, on his own.  He was able to contract and was considered as much a part of society as any other person.  However, prior to that point in life, the parents were totally responsible for the actions of their child.

The Crime of Fraud.  Let us look at what used to be a crime and what is now an accepted and approved practice.  However, first, some definitions:

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Fraud n. : Deceit; deception; trick; artifice by which the right or interest of another is injured; a stratagem intended to obtain some undue advantage; and attempt to gain or the obtaining of an advantage over another by imposition or immoral means; particularly deception in contracts.  Or bargain and sale, either by stating falsehoods, or suppressing truth.

From Black’s Law Dictionary (5th Edition):

Fraud. An intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or to surrender a legal tight.  A representation of a matter of fact, whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury.

What this means is that if I sell you something, and if I know that I cannot deliver, if you have created reliance upon that sale, and if you have even tendered payment for it, and if I fail to deliver, then I have committed a fraud.  This may be mitigated if I return your money, but it is still a crime.

So, if I sell you an airline ticket for a flight, at a specific time (or flight number), and to a specific destination, and take your money (credit card charge), then you should fully expect that I will deliver (especially, since the government has a degree of regulation through the FAA), as promised.  You, then, make plans based upon that reliance, though when you arrive to board, you find that all of the seats are taken, and you will not be able to achieve your goal of arriving at the destination in even close proximity to the time that you had planned. 

That constitutes what has always been regarded as a crime, though now, the airlines simply offer you another flight, or return your money.  They make no effort to offset any costs that you might incur because of their failure to provide what they had sold.  You have been deprived of your property, since your time is your property, and whether it is exchanged for money or set aside for pleasure, it is no less your property than your other physical possessions.  However, they have not committed a crime, and you have been the victim of a crime that was not committed.  This leaves you no legal remedy, which is a denial of justice as well as a loss of freedom.

BUSINESS ACTIVITY

Now that we have considered an example of fraud by a business that is somehow legal, it probably will not surprise you to learn business owners have been on the receiving end as well.

Who To Serve.  If many years ago you owned a business, you had every right to determine with whom you would, and, whom you would not, do business.  A very common sign of that same period read, “We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone.”  That was the prerogative of the owner of the business, and had nothing to do with any authority granted to the federal or state government.  However, about the same time, the government decided that this, too, was unconstitutional on several fronts.  Who you do business with is now up to the state, not up to the owner who acquired the capital, provided the idea and the sweat, and made a functioning business, based upon the model that he had established, for himself.

Now, it might be understandable if the business was operated by a corporation, which is created by a grant from the state, and it would definitely be understandable in any government owned building, but, surely, it was never intended by the Constitution to allow that you, as the owner of the business, did not have the right to conduct the business, as you saw fit.  This “restriction” on the rights of an individual business owner, which they should have the right (freedom) to operate, as they see fit, has, after years of acceptance, been expanded even further.

Americans With Disabilities Act.  It was not enough restriction for the government to dictate clientele of the business, so they had to go one step further.  They had to find some way of you having to actually spend thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars, because they said you had to so that people who have developed handicaps can have all for the rights that you have.  On top of that, they are, creatively, though not very practicably, ‘inventing’ new requirements for handicap access, every year.  The types of handicaps keep growing and the accommodations that are expected in the workplace are growing too.  The latest example of a “handicap” was an employee in Detroit who had a scent-sensitivity.  She asked her employer for an accommodation in her workspace, and after suing successfully, she was awarded $100,000.

Smoking Laws.  Not only has the government taken the freedom away from the business owner, with regard to refusing service, it has, also, gone to a greater extend to decide what activity, which for years was associated with that business, or, at least allowed by it.  For instance, government has mandated that smoking cannot be allowed in a restaurant, or a bar, or any other business that is open to the public, and even those businesses that are not open to the public.  They have decided that only they can determine, for the owner, the employees, and, the customer, that, whether they smoke, or not, or want to smoke, they can no longer do so in those locales where, for over two centuries, the Constitution recognized the freedom of that choice, by each of the parties involved.

They have taken this freedom in a rather deceptive manner.  It is easier to dispose of one’s freedom (rights) by a slight infringement, getting them used to, accepting the government’s authority, by less unreasonable imposition, e.g. separate designations for smoking areas and non-smoking areas.  After people have acquiesced, as a courtesy, they let their guards down.  Then, the government came in and said that there could be no smoking, period.  And, that freedom, to smoke where I choose, so long as the owner of the property has no objection, to one where the smokers is made into a criminal, while violating nobody’s rights in the process.

Second Chances.  Another aspect of the losses that have been incurred, with regard to our freedoms, is that of mobility and recovery, and, this also applies to children who have left the hearth and ventured out on their own.  In days past, as this country was growing from infancy to the greatest nation on earth, the mobility that was necessary to provide for that growth was accommodated by “room and board” facilities, and even people who would provide “room and board” in their own homes, for charge, or as just plain charity.  There were no laws restricting who could live under one’s own roof, and there were no health laws that required certified personnel and certified kitchens and equipment in order to feed those tenants.  This approach allowed someone new in town, someone who had gone through hard times and wished to get back on his feet, families, and those who had left their homes, to get a foothold and begin to build a life.  They did so by paying very reasonable rates for room and board, and paid daily, weekly, or even with additional work, or credit.  This would provide a means by which they could save for the future, eventually able to secure their own home, or, would provide a permanent and comfortable home for those who had no need for their own home.

Government, in their effort to care for us from cradle to coffin, decided that food could not be served in such facilities, and, in many places, even prohibited someone not of the family from living under the same roof.  Thus, someone living under the circumstances explained above is now placed in a position where he has must live somewhere else (or nowhere?) until he has secured first and last month’s rent, deposits for utilities, etc., usually amounting to thousands of dollars before he can have a place to live.  This government intrusion was created, under the guise of protecting us (though we know not from whom?).

CHILDHOOD ACTIVITIES

Let’s look at what it was like to be a child, or a teenager, just fifty years ago, when parents were our protectors, not the government.  Today, the government takes our freedom under the guise of keeping us safe from ourselves… how ridiculous.

I suppose that my fondest recollection is of water.  If there was water, we could play in it.  If it was deep enough, we could swim in it.  Often, if a neighbor was on vacation, that deep water was a swimming pool, usually enclosed by a privacy fence, though not secure, by any means.  If someone drowned, the rest of us were reminded of the dangers, a lesson was heeded, though this did nothing to discourage future escapades.  It was a different time with a different value system regarding who was responsible for our actions – WE WERE, not the government – even though we were children. 

Safer Cement.  We also put together plastic model airplanes, boats, cars, and, whatever else might find its way to the hobby store shelf.  The ‘glue’ of choice was “Plastic Model Cement”, which contained “toluene”.  It worked quite well, and it welded the parts together in such a way that the bond was probably stronger than the parts from which it was created.  In the meantime, some young people, who were not satisfied with getting into their parent’s liquor cabinet, or getting someone else to buy beer for them, found that putting the cement in a paper bag would, well, ‘weld’ their brains.  As a result (of the actions of a few — who probably deserved what they had wrought), the Plastic Model Cement makers were required to include additives in the cement.  The result was slower drying, far less bonding, and, consequently, the near destruction of a very useful, educational, and constructive hobby.  I know that I stopped making models, when the recipe for the cement changed to be barely functional.

Safer Bike Riding.  Bicycles are a boy’s best friend, well, at certain ages, anyway.  We knew our bicycles, inside and out.  We could change the tires, adjust the Bendix brakes, attach playing cards to make it sound like a motorcycle, when pedaled, and go anywhere, including roads, yards, fields, and even steep hills.  We had a hill that was fairly steep, behind our house.  On our side was the baseball field, which was a leveled area perhaps ten feet higher than the bottom of the gully.  We would tear down the hill, hit the gully, climb the short distance to the leveled ground, and fly into the air.  No insurance, no helmets or safety gear, no soft landing — and, occasionally, someone would fly over the handlebars and land in a heap, cut, bruised and dirty, or, worse yet, slide off of the seat and be jammed down on the bar between seat and handlebar post.  Even if any medical attention were warranted, it would be a mother’s sympathy, a washcloth and, perhaps, some Merthiolate and bandages.  Nobody ever considered that the blame lay elsewhere, nor was there any consideration of imposing laws, rules, or safety measures to assure that we would be protected against all of the evils of such an enterprise.

Safer Without Knives.  We also had knives.  Almost every boy had a pocketknife, either Cub Scout, Boy Scout or simply a pocketknife, most with blades at least three inches long.  Many of us also had sheath knives with blades six inches, or more, in length.  We could take them to school, though the sheath knives were frowned upon, and pull them out to show, or to use to cut something.  We were, after all, proud to be grown up enough to enjoy the sense of responsibility that came with such “adult activity”, and properly applied learning with regard to safety.  Who would have thought that our own children would be removed from school (suspended, or expelled) simply for possessing such on school property?

Safer Without Guns.  We also had guns.  It started with cap guns (“Bang, you’re dead!), then evolved to BB guns and pellet guns.  Whether lever action (spring loaded air compression), multiple pump (which could build rather substantial pressure), or, gas powered (CO2 cartridges), they were quite capable of causing injury, and of killing rodents and birds.  We learned to be both hunter (provider) and protector, by these exercises.

The next step was to a 22-caliber rifle.  These, of course, could have deadly consequences; however, we had, in the earlier stages, learned safety, and care in the use of guns.  To acquire the earlier choices, no requirements existed, except having the money to pay for the BB gun, or buy the BB’s and pellets.  The 22, however, required that you be eighteen years old to purchase, though most of us had one long before that age, for if our parents felt that we were old enough and mature enough, their blessing was the only requirement to possession of such an instrument of destruction.  Moreover, for the life of me, I cannot recall one instance, among the hundreds of those who enjoyed such luxuries, of any dangerous use, serious injury, or death, as a consequence thereof.

Safer Without Explosives.  Speaking of guns, both powder and dynamite were available, to those who needed them, prior to World War II, and, to some degree, afterwards.  Dynamite was commonly used to uproot trees, blast rocks and dig ponds in hard soil.  It was one of the most useful, and inexpensive, tools for those who worked the land.  Seldom were these tools misused by those of the time.  And, if they did misuse them, say, to rob a bank or open a safe, then they were guilty of robbery or theft, regardless of whether they used dynamite, or not.  Nor, did the restrictions of the use of dynamite curtail such activity.  The only suffering was by those who now had to resort to very expensive machinery to do what could have been done relatively inexpensively, before the restrictions.  However, as so many other useful objects, the majority must suffer because of the abuse of a few.

Safer Without Matches.  We used to go to the General Store and buy a package of book matches.  We would take a CO2 tube (cartridge for seltzer bottles and pellet guns) and drill the plug out of the small end.  The match heads would be torn off and packed into the entire tube.  Once filled, a pipe with the inside diameter of the outside of the tube would be secured as the “bazooka”.  One would hold the pipe and aim while the other would touch a lit match to the expose matched protruding from the tube.

One day, we heard of a neighbor that had been killed when the tube exploded and tore a gushing wound into the side of his neck.  Nobody was blamed, no new laws were passed, and many of us went to his funeral.  Life, after all, must end, but the pleasures of life will go on.  So, we fired a few “rocket” tubes, in memory of Danny Reagan.

Safer Without Hitchhiking.  Hitchhiking was a means of transportation for those under sixteen, and, for those who did not have a car.  Of course, the bus went to the same school that my thumb took me, but the thumb was far more fun, and, generally, much quicker in traversing the nine miles and numerous different roads that had to be followed to get to the High School.  During the summer, people and surfboards could travel great distances to find the best waves.  Never, however, was there any concern for safety, or a fear of someone wishing to harm us, as we travelled our merry way.  You see, those who might pose a threat to us were probably already in prison, for a very long time.  And, if not, were not willing to take the risk of joining their comrades in the “cross bar hotel”.

SEAT BELTS:  A LESSON IN INCREMENTALISM

In the sixties, the law required that seat belts be installed on the front seats of every passenger car.  This made little sense to us, so this required safety provision served, as far as we were concerned, only to add a few bucks to the cost of the car.  Life, after all, was as much about enjoying it as anything else.

So, let us use seatbelts as a means of understanding what effect the government intervention (social engineering) has had on us, and how it has resulted in much harm, along the way.

Seat belts were required to be installed, simply so that they would be available, if the occupants wanted to wear them.  Once the availability became more than a novelty, and were simply sat upon, the government decided to devise a means to force the use of them.  Simple gimmicks, such as contacts requiring that the seatbelt be latched before starting the car (cut-off systems) resulted in injury or death to some, while to others, they were merely an inconvenience, by-passed by leaving the seatbelt coupled, and sitting on it.  The injuries and deaths resulted when, in an emergency, the driver ran to the car, attempting to escape from a predator (rape or robbery), jumped in the car, inserted the key in the ignition, turned the key and found that the car would not start, because the seatbelts were not connected.  Having exerted the energy in attempting to escape by driving away, the doors were not yet locked, and the predator was able to gain access to the compromised victim.

Then came automatic restraint system.  Once you sat in the car and closed the door, a “runner” would drag the shoulder belt across a track in the door, gently wrapping you in the warm and comfortable arms of “auto-restraint”.  These, too, had drawbacks.  Apparently, some people were actually entangled in the restraints, or even choked to death by such systems.  So, we move on to the next endeavor to protect us from ourselves (and, to stand up against the ridicule that many of these efforts to force compliance had brought on).

Systems that were more passive were developed which flashed lights and sent irritating sounds into all ears on board, should a wary passenger fail to “buckle up”.  However, it was usually a rather simple task to reach under the seats and disconnect the wiring that sensed an occupant and initiated the cacophony.  After a multitude of attempts to outsmart the witty citizens of this country, who chose to do what they wanted, those same citizens finally succumbed, after many years, nay, generations, of indoctrination, to the acceptance of laws that will punish you financially, if you are caught failing to heed that which has been imposed for your own “protection”.  Though you must, if you consider the circumstance, wonder why the government is so concerned over your safety, when you are suppose to have the right to your own life, liberty and property.

LICENSING OF OUR RIGHTS

While we are delving into transportation, we might also look at the aviation industry.  Pilots, by the way, are not licensed, though you are licensed as a driver.  Why would that be?  If this is truly a free country, don’t I have a right to get around by the common mode of transportation, as have all who have come before me?  In this section, we will discuss how the government uses licensing to restrict our freedoms, and, to raise revenue for itself.

Here, we might want to revisit some definitions:

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, we find:

License n.:  Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forebear any act.  a license may be verbal or written; when written.  The paper containing the authority is called a license.

License v. t.: 
1. To permit by authority; to remove legal restraint by grant of permission.
2. To authorize to act in a particular character.

Certificate n.:  In a general sense, a written testimony not sworn to; a declaration in writing, signed by the party, and intended to verify a fact.

From Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, we find:

License.  The permission by competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.

Certificate.  A written assurance, or official representation, that some act has been or has not been done, or some event occurred, or some legal formality has been complied with.

Now, forgive me for beginning with a question, but, why would a driver need a license when an airline pilot need only have a certificate?

Licensing Pilots.  If a pilot, (public or private) need only have a certificate to demonstrate that he has had the proper training and experience to “drive” airplanes, and then only have to retain “currency”: by flying so many hours, each year, to demonstrate maintained proficiency (no annual license required), then, why would someone who is only exercising his right to travel on the public roadways have his “right” subordinated to a “license” (permission to do what, without the license, would be illegal)?

I will leave you to ponder just why a “right” would be illegal if the government did not issue a “license”.

Licensing Cars.  When I was in high school, I had an accident.  I ran into the car in front of me, which had stopped for a stop sign.  I was at fault, without a doubt.  A cop was called and came to fill out an accident report.  The report recorded the fact that I was at fault (under the old form of mandatory auto insurance, not no-fault) for the accident, and so that the responsibility could be assigned to the proper party.  I did not receive a citation, fine, order for court appearance, or anything, except a copy of the accident report.  That was then …

Many years later, I had another accident.  I was in a strange city (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), and was trying to find an address.  I, inadvertently, turned the wrong way on a one-way street.  Coming the right way (in accordance with the Traffic Control Devices), was a garbage truck.  He didn’t hesitate to run into me, causing substantial damage to the car I was driving, but not to his massive truck.  Though he saw me, he chose not to attempt to avert the accident, through his own admission, however, that was inconsequential, since I had violated the rules of the road.  I received no citation for “driving the wrong way on a one way street”, for this instance, which would have made a minor offense, but interestingly the driver of the garbage truck received no citation for intentionally hitting my car.  This shows that the government objective is not always about protecting the citizens, as we might prefer to think.

Since then, it has occurred to me, many times, that, perhaps, it is not illegal to drive the wrong way on a one-way street, however, it is illegal (only to the extent of determination of fault) to have an accident while driving on a one-way street.  However, government has learned that there are substantial revenue resources in looking out for our safety (traffic fines) for violating those rules of the road.  Today, I would have received a citation, so the government could receive revenue.

Licensing Drugs.  Moving right along, let us look at medications and drugs.  Many years ago, when the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution (Prohibition) was ratified (1919), you could go to the local pharmacist, without a prescription from the doctor, and tell him what your ailments were.  He would then determine both what medication and what dosage you required, and provide them to you.  Pharmacists, then, and now, require the same amount of education and internship as do doctors.  They have, however, concentrated their study on medicine, its effects, etc., while the doctor prescribes new medications based upon information flyers, and, perhaps, gifts received from the manufacture of the drugs.  He is not, by a long shot, and expert on the medication, and, as time goes by, he is probably far less “current” on the drugs, side effects, dosages, etc., than the pharmacists — but he does have a bigger lobby in Congress.  Meanwhile, the pharmacist is denied information that might save your life, unless you give him the information you received from the doctor.  He is nothing more than a technician capable of reading a doctor’s handwriting and counting pills into a bottle.

Also, in the meantime, many of the drugs, herbs, and other medical remedies have been removed from the pharmacists’ shelves and reclassified as dangerous, denying us access, unless we pay our way into a prescription from a doctor, if that otherwise useful drug has not been completely outlawed.  In addition, the doctor is on a short string — not to provide too many painkillers, under penalty of having the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) remove his right to prescribe medicine (effectively barring him from practicing medicine under his state issued license).

This has pushed the people into resorting to other means to obtain both prescription and non-prescription drugs, by venturing to Canada or Mexican, the internet, or even the streets, to obtain what free people in a free country should be able to obtain without question.

What we must consider is that, in 1919, our right (freedom) to obtain drugs to treat ailments, and, yes, even for recreational purposes, was an unquestioned freedom.  Can there be any doubt that, if a Constitutional Amendment were required, not to give the authority to the government to outlaw a drug (alcohol), specifically, then the Constitution did not ever intend, nor did the Constitution allow, the extension of that authority to prohibit beyond one drug to cover impact any other drugs?

So, what happened to that freedom of choice — to address our own means of dealing with our own medical problems — which existed prior to and Amendment that was repealed just 14 years later (1933)?  As mentioned earlier, the repeal was a consequence of the jurors, in cases involving the laws passed in accordance with the Eighteenth Amendment, were asserting their rights (and responsibilities) as the final arbiter of any laws, by not convicting those charged with such crimes.  Eventually, the states caught up with the people and repealed that perversion of our freedoms known as Prohibition.

Have you noticed a pattern, yet?

There are some things that are banned, now, from our use.  They tend to be rather inexpensive, though cost is not, of necessity, a factor on their significance in our lives.  Those items that have a value for the producer (medicine, health, transportation, etc.) tend not to be outlawed, rather, they tend to be controlled by the government, so as to yield a higher return for the manufacturers, or a revenue for government, or both.  Those “freedoms” we are allowed to keep, though they have an unreasonable costs associated with them.  Here is another example of licensing to produce revenue.

Licensing of Housing.  Many of the earliest homes were void of conveniences such as running water, inside plumbing and toilet facilities, and even glass windows.  In fact, if we look back to the days in which the western regions of the country first being peopled by Europeans, who had to contend with many obstacles to settle the land, they began by building homes of readily available materials.  As the western expansion began, they became even more creative in the use of readily available materials.  Probably the crudest, though in many ways, the most practical home in the western plains was the “Soddy”, a house built of dirt, rock and sod from the prairie grasses, and, perhaps, a bit of wood.  These were exceptionally well insulated, with built in heating and cooling, by virtue of the soil maintaining more stable temperatures, and moderating of extreme.  They were not required to obtain building permits and inspections.

Years ago, I rented a house that had been condemned.  The plumbing was not functional, most of the windows were broken out, and plaster was falling from some of the walls.  I replaced windows, plaster with sheetrock, repaired the plumbing, installed a new pump, and called the electric company to turn the power on.  A man from the power company came out and asked where the building permit an inspection records were.  I told him that I had none, and he explained that the power company, under their license, could not turn on the electricity absent approval by the County.

So, I called the County and explained that I needed an inspection so that I could get the power turned on.  A Building Inspector arrived at the property an asked if I had a building permit.  I told him that I did not, and then explained all that I had done, and showed him the electric box.  He walked through the entire house, inspected the box, and said, “Well, since this is not for commercial use, and will not be open to the public, I’ll sign off on it.”  He did, and I got my power turned on.

That was about forty years ago.  However, even then, it was possible to build (or rebuild) your house and get the blessings of the County so that you could live as you chose to.  That time has passed, however, and, in today’s world you can be required to tear down improvements, be fined, or even spend time in jail, if all is not done according to the dictates of the County (and the payment of certain fees).

Right of Restitution.  Another freedom that has been lost is the right to restitution, if a crime of injury or loss has been perpetrated against you.  In the past, if someone stole something from you, damaged your property, or caused an injury, and if that person were found guilty of the crime, then restitution — making you whole — was a part of the punishment meted out by the court (and jury).  This assured you that, if the guilty person were found, tried, and convicted, that then you suffered no loss, as a result of the crime.  Over time, the courts have developed a schedule of fines that enhance their own revenue, but the concept of restitution has been lost.  If you have not provided for insurance, then you will never be made whole.  Recovery from crimes against you is for you to deal with, on your own.  The court will collect their due, and then turn the criminal back on the streets to prey on others.

LOSS OF THE MEANING OF PUBLIC

Let’s now look at a word that has been used, before, in this discussion:

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Public n.: The general body of mankind or of a nation, state or community; the people, indefinitely.

Public a. :
1.  Pertaining to a nation, state or community; extending to a whole people; as a public law, which binds the people of a nation or state as opposed to a private statute or resolve which respects individuals or a corporation only.
3.  Open; notorious; exposed to all persons without restriction.
4.  Regarding a community; directed to the interests of a nation, state or community.
6.  Open to common use; as a public road.
7.  In general public expresses something common to mankind at large, to a nation, state, city or town, and is opposed to private, which denotes what belongs to an individual, to a family, to a company or corporation.

From Black’s Law Dictionary, fifth edition:

Public, n.  The whole body politic, or the aggregate of the citizens of a state, nation, or municipality.  The inhabitants of a state, county, or community.  In one sense, everybody, and accordingly the body of the people at large; the community at large, without reference to geographical limits of any corporation like a city, town, or county; the people.

Public a. : Pertaining to a state, nation, or whole community, proceeding from, relating to, or affecting the whole body of people or an entire community.  Open to all; notorious.  Common to all or many; general; open to common use, Belonging to the people at large; relating to affecting the whole people of a state, nation, or community; not limited or restricted to any particular class of the community.

Did you notice that the government was not once mentioned?  Well, if the government is not mentioned then a public building, a public roadway, a public park, public lands, or any other object defined as “public” does not belong to the government, rather, it belongs to “the body of the people at large“.  So, why is it that children are no longer able to camp (sleep out) on public land, or in a public park, when they were allowed to do so just fifty years ago?  Most states still allowed “open camping”, which meant that you could camp on any land owned by the people, collectively.  Can you imagine how many would have survived the Great Depression, as they moved west and sought jobs, if they had no recourse but to rent a room, or, well, is there even an alternative?  Why is it now that we are barred from public lands, except during certain hours, or with a certain permit, or, maybe, not at all?  Is this not a loss of our freedoms?

Speaking of public, let’s look at one of the mainstays of the inherent strength of this country — education.  Public schools date back to the sixteen hundreds, where the local community contributed both to build a schoolhouse and to hire an instructor.  The concept of the community being in charge of the schools was consistent with educating the students to become a betterment to the community.  “Ad valorem” (property) taxes were the means of funding, and the decisions of who to hire, what to build, the curriculum, which textbooks, etc., was left to the local school board — elected out from among the members of the community.  As time went on, state governments set standards, though they had little influence over other matters within the school.  The state involvement was directed at policy, not detail.

In 1953, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) was created in the United States government.  Over time, local revenues were replaced with federal funds, and not only [policy, but detail, regarding the education of our children, was transferred to the national government.  School boards were relegated to little more than where to purchase what the HEW mandated.  Control over content, curriculum, etc., was no longer in the hands of the parents.  The freedom to choose what education your child received in his first 12 years of education was completely removed from your control, and the determination of the foundation for the rest of the child’s life was laid in the hands of the government.

In might be said that the government has stolen from us that which is, rightfully, ours — Public.

CORPORATE SEIZURE OF OUR RIGHTS

We cannot discuss freedom without touching on one of the principle enumerated freedoms, as defined in the Bill of Rights.  This most important freedom is “Freedom of the Press”.  Exactly what Freedom of the press is has become rather muddled, over the years.  The courts have construed it as the right to keep a source’s identity secret, under the argument that to not allow such secrecy jeopardizes the reporter’s ability to gather information for stories.  However, is it possible that Freedom of the Press, that the means by which we are informed, might have other, and, much more significant meaning?

Let’s look at two aspects of that freedom that are worthy of considerations:

“The FREEDOM OF THE PRESS hath, in consequence thereof, been esteemed one of its safeguards.  That freedom gives the right, at all times, to every citizen to lay his sentiments, in a decent manner, before the people, If he will take that trouble upon himself, whether they are on point or not, his countrymen are obliged to him for so doing; for, at least, they lead to an examination of the subject upon which he writes.”

“John DeWitt,” Essay III, Nov. 5, 1787

And, as was clearly understood, in those days in which this Freedom was so highly regarded, there were many newspapers, each privately owned, and each having its own political views.  Therefore, each side of the arguments of the day could be heard.

Unfortunately, the laws promulgated by the Congress have allowed a consolidation of news sources to the point that three syndicates control over 90% of the news that is unleashed upon us, each day.  Those syndicates dictate (though through very subtle means), what can and what cannot be heard, or read.  This defies both of the above examples of what freedom for the press was intended to afford us.  This Freedom, by which we were to be informed, has become a means by which we have become misinformed, and, yes, propagandized and indoctrinated to the messages that are controlled by just a few.

Conclusion

As Benjamin Franklin said on his Memoir (1818), “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety“.  Moreover, we can see that the Congress, the government that was established to serve us, has determined to provide us the “safety” that they feel that we deserve — and, we have not objected.

However, as you can see in reading the above losses of freedom, there might well be other motives behind their actions.  They have become the source of redistribution of wealth and the grantors of economic favor.  And, they have done so at the expense of the Freedoms that so much blood has been shed to obtain and preserve.

Much like the process of aging, we have failed to notice these transgressions, though, if we simply stand back and observe, then it is quite evident that the loss of our freedoms, over decades, and even generations, has been a slow and meticulous process.  Whether by design, or by accident, it does not matter.  These lost freedoms (liberties) were enjoyed, well within the lifetime of many of us, but they are now gone.  Subordinated to the social engineering (and deprivation of freedom) that has been ongoing, in this country, for quite some time.  What truly matters, for ourselves and our posterity, is what we will do now that we are fully aware of the diminishment of that which was a gift from God, as well as our birthright.

Our opposition should be based upon principle, not upon comfort.  If this erosion of freedom makes you uncomfortable, that is a start, but it cannot stop there.  This travesty occurred because we were not outraged at the first loss of our freedom, the step that began the erosion.  If we were opposing government intrusions based on principle, rather than comfort, then the first lost of freedom would be the beacon to remind us that the next lost freedom might be our own favorite freedom. 

Do we owe any less to the task at hand as those who have come before us?  Their sacrifices were for their posterity, far more than for themselves, for they did not know just how much that they, individually, would lose in the process.  If the price of freedom is such that it is worthy of their commitment of their very lives, then can we expect no less of ourselves?  Or, has our complacency reduced us to simple beggars, begging for that which is rightfully ours, and unwilling to sacrifice our own safety to restore those freedoms, not only for ourselves, but, too, for our own posterity?

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

If someone wants to hurt my child, I care not what the reasons are; I care only about protecting that child, whatever the cost. 
If we ever are to prevail, we need that same clarity, borne of instinct, to protect that which cannot protect itself. 
Our constitution does not protect us, we protect it. 
Our liberties are not born in the Constitution, they are merely enshrined there.

E. Sutton

Download a PDF version of this article: Finding Freedom Again (PDF)

Charity and General Welfare

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

[Note: in all definitions, italics, underscoring, and bolding are mine, for emphasis]

Often, we think that we know what a word means.  Its meaning can be construed according to the rules by which the communication game is played.  If we all agree to the meaning, then we understand what the other means, when he uses that word in a discussion.

What happens, then, when there is a disagreement over the definition of a word?

Let’s suppose that I define, for the sake of explanation, the word “water” to mean only potable (drinkable) water.  By that singular act, I have excluded most of the water in the world.  Seawater, wastewater, ground water, bathing water, heck, even tears are excluded, along with a large percentage of your body.  I have tipped the conversation to a point where you must struggle in any effort to describe any H2O, unless it can be ingested.

Let’s look at another word that, if defined outside of the common usage, creates a different sort of dilemma.  To understand this phenomenon, we must look back to get a solid understanding of what the word means.  Note that I use a dictionary that defines words, as the Founding Fathers would have perceived them, at the time of the birth of this great nation.  The word is:

Charity [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary] 1.  In a general sense, love, benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good.

2.  In a more particular sense, love, kindness, affection, tenderness, springing from natural relations; as the charities of father, son and brother.

3.  Liberality to the poor, consisting in alms giving or benefactions, or in gratuitous services, to relieve them in distress.

4.  Alms; whatever is bestowed gratuitously on the poor for their relief.

5.  Liberality in gifts and services to promote public objects of utility, as to found and support bible societies, societies, and others.

6.  Candor; liberality in judging of men and their actions; a disposition which inclines men to think and judge favorably, and to put the best construction on words and actions which the case will admit.

7.  Any act of kindness, or benevolence; and as the charities of life.

8.  A charitable institution.

Now, we can see that benevolence is synonymous with Charity.  We can also see that, with the exception of the sixth definition, all acts of charity are acts of individuals (italicized words), or, perhaps, groups of individuals.

So, let’s look at:

Benevolence [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

1.  The disposition to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness; the love of mankind, accompanied with a desire to promote their happiness.

2.  An act of kindness; good done; charity given.

3.  A species of contribution or tax illegally exacted by arbitrary kings of England.

So, benevolence provides a bit more insight into what Charity might really mean.  We can look at “disposition to do good” and “act of kindness” to clearly be acts that cannot be done by government.  Government cannot have disposition, nor can it commit an act of kindness, for kindness is a feeling of emotion.

Government can, however, require a contribution (not alms, which are freely given) or tax.  As is indicated by the definition, the government referred to one form of benevolence as such.  But, then, that was arbitrary, and without free will.

Now, let’s look at what the Courts have determined Charity to consist of:

Charity [from Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition]

A gift for, or institution engaged in, public benevolent purposes.  A gift for benefit of indefinite numbers of persons under influence of religion or education, relief from disease, assisting people to establish themselves in life, or erecting or maintaining public works [Johnson v. South Blue Hill Cemetery Association].

A charity, in absence of legislative definition, is an attempt in good faith, spiritually, physically, intellectually, socially and economically to advance and benefit mankind in general, or those in need of advancement and benefit in particular, without regard to their ability to supply that need from other sources and without hope or expectation, if not with positive abnegation, of gain or profit by donor or by instrumentality of charity [Planned Parenthood Association v. Tax Commissioner].

Once again, we see that government cannot act in the capacity of giving charity, unless it sets a legal definition.  But, to do so would be to say that Charity (water) is what we want it to be, and must exclude whatever we do not want to be included.

Now, I realize that this last sentence might be difficult for some to swallow.  After all, the government, through the IRS, determines what acceptable charities are.  Well, yes, that is true.  At the same time, by not acknowledging something that you or I might deem charitable, if the government does not, they have made an uneven playing field.  They have allowed tax deductions for what they consider to be charitable, and, denied those deductions from those that they choose to exclude.

This, then, means that if you want a tax deduction for a contribution, you can only receive it if you contribute (not give alms) to the charities on the official government list.  In addition, by the way, the government has set rigid rules for those charities to abide by, or they will lose their status as charities.

Now, with this simple conversion of charity to what the government wants it to be, and, since they are essentially tied to those charities (by their arbitrary influence over them), it is a simple step to allow the government to “take out the middle man” and become a “Charity” (see Charity, #8, and Benevolence, #3) in themselves.  When they perceive a deficiency in availability of resources, they will, well, fill in the gap.

However, that gap is filled through forms such as welfare, unemployment compensation, and numerous (actually, hundreds of) other “entitlement” programs.

So, how did charity work, in the past?

Charity, which is what was recognized at the time as the means by which individuals might receive assistance, was carried out by Churches, towns, cities, counties and the state, as appropriate.  And, the decisions of what to provide were solely in the hands of the people who voted within that level of government.  County and state only provided for hospitals, mental hospitals, and orphanages.  Counties also provided for “poor farms”, but those partaking of this offering were expected to work by growing food and producing products.  Churches, towns, and cities would provide assistance, as well as encouragement, to provide for those in need.

We can go a bit further and, perhaps, begin to understand that the results, or, consequences, of Charity can have very different outcomes.  We all know the pleasure of gift giving, — The smile on a young child’s face, or the gratitude from one that you were able to help during a time of crisis.  It seems apparent that, when Charity was administered locally, you could see the benefits realized, and with that, also realize the sense of goodness that you had demonstrated.

If you were the recipient of that local Charity, you would forever feel indebted, and very appreciative of those who had helped you in your time of need.

Fast forward to the “charity” of our current time.  As the “contributor” to the charity, you don’t even have a sense of who your gift went to, where they live, or what form that charity took.  Quite frankly, you don’t even know if your “contribution” went to charity, or not.  There  are, after all, so many needs that exist outside of helping people: Interest; armament and grants to other countries; research grants to scientists, so that they could ‘prove’ that global warming is a reality; etc.  So, your sense of giving is lost, and never realized as a good thing, something to be proud of.  Nor can you ever realize that sense of pleasure — seeing the effect of the good that you have done.

Similarly, the recipient of that “charity” really has nobody to thank for what good they have received.  They know that the dole is generated by a table based upon their needs, and, often, they will manipulate their apparent need to receive a greater benefit.  There is nobody to thank, or to be grateful to, because the ‘benefactor’ is a cold government agency, with equally cold employees, administering the ‘investigation’ of your needs.  You see it as their obligation to you.  And, further, having nobody to direct your gratitude to, you begin to lose all sense of appreciation for what you have received.  Eventually, you begin to be scornful of that very agency that puts food in your mouth, and the only thing that stirs any sense of self-respect is that you know that if you scorn those who have given to you, then you just might intimidate them into giving you more.

If you have any doubts about the above, just ask yourself if those, who gave in the past, would have given if the person who appeared to have a need also had a color television and a cell phone, and managed to keep the monthly charges current, rather than risking having the cable or cell service cut off.  Would you really want to help them, after seeing that they simply did not have a grasp on what is most important in life?

So, this will lead us to the next step of our journey.  In the Preamble (purpose) to the Constitution, we find the phrase, “promote the general Welfare.”  Well, we simply look around us and see that we have moved, consistently, toward a “welfare state”, but, was that what was intended by the phrase?

Let’s return to 1828, and see what the Founding Fathers might have meant by that phrase:

Welfare [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the normal blessings of society and civil government; as applies to states

General [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

The whole; the total; that which comprehends all or the chief part; opposed to particular.

So, we can see that the intention of the phrase, as can be surmised by the definitions of those times, was very general — to endeavor to create an environment that was conducive, to all of the citizens, of peace and prosperity.  Nothing in this description would even begin to suggest that the general welfare was selective, and that it could be applied only to some.  It was not a tangible application; rather, it was intangible, and was presumed to create a harmonious and equitable political foundation for all.

And again, as the courts perceive it (though take note that while case cites are provided when there is precedent in law to provide a definition, as in the definitions above, the following definitions are absent any citations):

Welfare [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition]

Well-doing or well-being in any respect; the enjoyment of health and common blessings of life; exemption from any evil or calamity; prosperity; happiness.  See also General welfare; Public welfare

General welfare [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition]

The general term used to describe the government’s concern for health, peace, morals, and safety of its citizens.

Public welfare [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition]

The prosperity, well being, or convenience of the public at large, or of a whole community, as distinguished from the advantage of an individual or limited class.  It embraces the primary social interests of safety, order, morals, economic interests, and non-material and political interests.  In the development of our civic life, the definition of “public welfare” has also developed until it has been held to bring within its purview regulations for the promotion of economic welfare and public convenience.

Though the definitions hold similar meaning with Webster’s, in the last sentence we see that the foundation is beginning to be laid for the expansion of what was clearly the limitation on government from the Preamble to the allowance of “regulations“ that would extend the authority to a realm in which the Founding Fathers did not anticipate.

There might be one more step that would assist us in understanding just what Charity is, or, at least, what it was intended by the Founding Fathers to be:

Hospital [from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary]

The building appropriated for the reception of sick, infirm and helpless paupers, who are supported and nursed by charity; also, a house for the reception of insane persons, whether paupers or not, or for seaman, soldiers, foundlings, &c. who are supported by the public, or by private charity, or for infected persons, &c.

Now, we can see that hospitals were charitable institutions.  Most people of means, at the time, would have the doctor call upon them for treatment.

As recently as sixty years ago, doctors made house calls.  However, the increases in population, the expansion of hospitals to meet the needs of the increased numbers, and, the increased demand on doctors, all conspired to pave the way for office visits, with visits to the hospital for surgical procedures, long term care, and contagious sequestration.

Now, what have the Courts said?  Although, once again, case cites are not provided here, you will nonetheless see that the definition reflects those changes just described:

Hospital [from Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition]

An institution for the treatment and care of sick, wounded, infirm, or aged persons; generally incorporated, and then of the class of corporations called “eleemosynary” [relating to, given as, or depending on charitable gifts] or “charitable.”  Also the building used for such purpose.  Hospitals may be either public or private, and may be limited in their functions or services, e.g., children’s hospital.

So, even though incorporated, the hospitals were charitable in nature.  They had not yet become the “profit centers” (medical, or health, centers) that we now see proliferating the landscape.

Charity, as I believe has been adequately demonstrated, is a voluntary contribution, by an individual or an organization, with the intent of providing a means of service or betterment for individuals who are otherwise unable to provide such benefit or service for themselves.

Over the last two centuries, there has been an “evolution” of the meaning of words as well as the intention of the Founding Fathers.  Though they made provision for Amendment of the Constitution, they made no provision for the redefinition of the words that they so meticulously selected to compose that document.

Let us look at the consequences of the changes, without lawful authority, to those definitions and intentions.  Government has removed the free choice of charitable contributions by selectively determining what constitutes a charity, and providing rewards (deductions) for contributing to those so chosen.  They have presumed an authority to act in the character of an individual or organization by becoming one of the most “benevolent” charities of all, via social security, welfare, and a multitude of other “programs” by which they have garnered the allegiance of the beneficiaries of those programs.  If I grant a gift, freely, that goes from me to you, it is charity.  If, however, you encourage, allow, or refuse to resist a burglar, or anyone else (government) from taking from me and giving to you, that is nothing less than theft (pillage), and you are an accessory to that theft by being the recipient of the benefit or service.  You cannot color it in any other way.

[on line at: http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/verbnd.htm]

[Note: PDF file of this article: The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence (PDF)]

The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence

Social Upheaval in Colonial America – 1774-1775
from Farmers to Patriots

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
February 2, 2010

John Adams to Jefferson

August 24, 1815.

“…As to the history of the revolution, my ideas may be peculiar, perhaps singular.  What do we mean by revolution?  The war?  That was no part of the revolution’ it was only an effect and consequence of it.  The revolution was in the minds of the people, and this was effected from 1760 to 1775, in the course of fifteen years, before a drop of blood was drawn at Lexington.  The records of the thirteen legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers in all the colonies ought to be consulted during that period, to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of parliament over the colonies”.

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

We most often define the Revolution as the War of Independence from rule by Great Britain.  We also suppose that the Revolution began with the British efforts to seize gunpowder and cannon from the stores at Concord, Massachusetts.  We also define the beginning of the Revolution as a battle that ensued when the British were resisted in their attempt to secure those guns and powder.

From a political standpoint, we look at the Stamp Act, Tea Tax, and the Massachusetts Port Act as the elements that provoked the actions at Lexington and Concord, on April 19, 1775.

There were, however, a number of events, both political and rebellious, that predate the battle on Lexington Green.  These events fall well within the period that John Adams defines as the Revolution — that period in which the public was “enlightened and informed concerning the authority of parliament over the colonies”.

The Political Environment

Let us look at some of the forgotten events that were, for all intents and purposes, the end of the Revolution, and, the precursor to the War of Independence.

Though it took many weeks to arrive in the Colonies, the Massachusetts Port Act was approved by the parliament on March 31, 1774.  “[A]n act to discontinue, in such manner, and for such time as are therein mentioned, the landing and discharging, loading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the town, and within the harbor, of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America.” The act, essentially, embargoed Boston and restricted that necessary flow of goods to that city.  It also included housing and feeding 3000 British soldiers, which increased the demand on available goods.

Seldom mentioned, however, was the Massachusetts Governments Act (see Appendix), approved by parliament nearly two months later, on May 20, 1774.

This legislation was described as, “an act for the better regulating the governments of the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England“.  This act had a devastating effect on the existing governments in the Massachusetts colony.  It removed the selection of the governor from the general courts or assemblies of the colony and vested that authority in the Crown.  It further provided that all counselors, judges, commissioners, the attorney general, provosts, marshals, and justices of the peace, would be appointed by the Governor and approved by his Majesty.  The final indignation came when the act required that all agenda items from town meetings had to have approval of the royal Governor, and that only the annual town meetings, in March and May, may be held, without permission of the Governor.  Business as usual was no longer an option.

The impact of this second act, the Massachusetts Government Act, was felt more severely in the rural communities outside of Boston.  The people of Boston were preoccupied with the occupation by the British troops, and though their governments had been suspended, their concerns were other than those of the farmers.

Suddenly, these small communities were unable to conduct the business of keeping their government functioning.

Within the small communities, there were those with wealth and family.  These “crafty” men managed to hold the more powerful positions in the communities.  Whether merchants or lenders, there were many who owed them for goods, services, or money.

Increases in taxes, because of the French – Indian wars, had reduced the available amounts of money to almost nonexistent — making it impossible to repay their obligations.

Those who had wealth and power tended to be “Tories” and loyal to the crown.  They were also influential in the judicial system, which often seized property, livestock, or land, in repayment of debts.

Therefore, in 1773, committees were forming throughout the countryside.  By December 1773, when news of the Boston tea party had reached the country, committees began communicating in earnest.

The town of Worcester, in Worcester County, issued a resolve, stating, in part:

to have these who are to judge, and Determin, on our lives, property, paid by a foreign State, immediately Destroy the national dependence which ought to Subsist between a people, and their officers, and of consequence, destructive of liberty; For which reason, we are of the opinion, that we are not in the least bound in duty to Submit, to the ordering in Determining of Such officers as not dependent on the Grants of this people for their pay.

This resolution outraged local Tories.

A local blacksmith, Timothy Bigelow, was elected leader of the Town Council, for the first time displacing the wealth and power that had ruled before.

The superior court was scheduled to open on April 19, 1774.  Four of the five superior court judges had already refused “the bribe offered them by the crown”, leaving only one judge to serve on the court.

Just a month before, the Massachusetts house of representatives had impeached Chief Justice Peter Oliver.  Before the council could try Oliver, Governor Thomas Hutchinson dissolved the general court.  The impeachment was not completed.

Oliver was scheduled at the April 19 Worcester County superior court, however, the Whigs refused to serve as grand jurors — effectively nullifying the court.  Oliver, wisely, refused to appear at Worcester County – for fear of his life.

The Tory faction recorded the “Redmond Dissent” of the recent Whig activities.  Only 52 of the nearly 250 eligible voters in Worcester County signed this dissent.  Clearly, the Whigs were gaining control.

In May 1774, word of the Boston Port Act arrived in the Colonies.  Along with the act came a newly appointed a Royal Governor, General Thomas Gage.  Essentially, this was the end of civil government in Massachusetts.  During the next 11 months, many changes were going to occur in Massachusetts.

John Adams, reflecting the mood of the countryside, while staying at a Shrewsbury inn, recorded an indication of things to come:

[A]s I was cold and wet, I sat down to the good fire in the bar room to dry great coat and saddlebags tell a fire could be made in my chamber.  Their presently came in, one after another, half a dozen, or half the score, substantial yeoman of the neighborhood, who, sitting down to the fire after lighting their pipes, began a lively conversation upon politics.  As I believed I was unknown to all of them, I sat in total silence to hear them.

One said, “The people of Boston are distracted!”

Another answered, “No wonder the people of Boston are distracted.  Oppression will make wise men mad.”

A third said, “what would you say, if a fellow should come to your house and tell you he has come to take a list of your cattle, that parliament might tax you for them at so much ahead?  And how should you feel, if he was to go and break open your barn, to take down your oxen, cows, horses, and sheep?”

“What I should say,” replied the first;” I would knock him in the head.”

” Well,” said a fourth, “if parliament can take away Mr. Hancock’s wharf and Mr. Rowe’s wharf, they can take away your barn and my house”.

After much more reasoning in this style, a fifth, who had as yet been silent, broke out, “Well, it is high time for us to rebel; we must rebel some time or other, and we had better rebel now than at any time to come.  If we put off for 10 or 20 years, and let them go on as they have begun, they will get a strong party among us, and plague us a great deal more than they can now.”

On June 6, 1774, the Massachusetts Government Act was published in the Boston Gazette.  From this point on, nearly every position of competence, within any level of government, would be subject to appointment by the royal governor.  Even agenda items for town meetings were subject to his approval.  Except in Boston, only town council members would be elected by the people.

On August 6, 1774, the Massachusetts Government Act went into effect.  The king had selected 36 men to sit on the council –“mandamus counselors” –of which only three had been elected to the council by the people.  The crown was repudiating the electoral process established by the 1691 charter.

On Sunday, August 7, General Gage, ignoring the Sabbath, sent messages to the newly appointed counselors and summoned them to Salem the following morning.  Only 11 of the 36 showed up to take their oaths on Monday.  Of the remainder, three accepted their appointments but were not sworn in, two declined their appointments, and the remaining four chose to “take time to consider of it”.  The remainder, living at a distance from Salem, could not be notified in time.

On August 9, 1774, 52 men from 22 towns in the county met at Mary Stearns’ tavern in Worcester to establish a committee.

Among the resolutions written and adopted that day, we find the following:

Resolved, That we bear all true allegiance to his majesty King George the third, and that we will, to the utmost of our power, defend his person, crown, and dignity, but at the same time, we disclaim any jurisdiction in the commons of Great Britain over his majesty’s subjects in America.

Resolved, that an attempt to vacate said charter [1691 Massachusetts Charter], by either party, without the consent of the other, has a tendency to dissolve the union between Great Britain and this province, to destroy the allegiance we owed to the king, and to set aside the sacred obligations he is under to his subjects here.

Resolved, that it is the indisputable duty of every American, and more especially in this province, to unite in every virtuous opposition that can be devised, in order to save ourselves and posterity from inevitable ruin.

Voted, that we most earnestly recommend it to the several towns in this county, (and if it should not be thought to arrogant,) to every town in the province, to meet and adopt some wise, prudent, and spirited measures, in order to prevent the execution of those most alarming acts of parliament, respecting our constitution.

The Social Upheaval

Berkshire County, Massachusetts – August 16, 1774

The Inferior Court of Common Pleas for a Berkshire County was scheduled to meet on August 16, 1774, in Great Barrington.  Great Barrington was a three-day ride from Boston, and the suits are the first to be heard by officials appointed under the Massachusetts Government Act.

In opposition to the Whigs, local Tories, including several justices of the peace and the county sheriff, had tried to prevent a meeting of the Whigs.  In that meeting, the local Whigs had developed a “Solemn League and Covenant”.  The Covenant provided that any trader or shop-keeper in the county would have only 48 hours to sign the agreement, if he wanted to avoid a boycott of his store.

On July 16, David Ingersoll, the most outspoken of the Tories, and leader of an effort to stop the solicitation of signatures for the Covenant, was kidnapped, along with his servants, and taken across the Connecticut border to Canaan, Connecticut.  There, he was accused of crimes, including his support for the Massachusetts Government Act and opposition to the Berkshire Covenant.  Though he refused to sign an oath that the Whigs had prepared, he did prepare and sign a statement, in good faith.  Though no bodily damage was inflicted, Ingersoll was covered with grease (“for want of tar”) and feathers, put down an empty well, and kept there overnight.

Meanwhile, the Whigs sent a letter, dated July 25, from their Committee to the Boston Committee, explaining that, “[W]e are persuaded that no business can be transacted at said court [meaning the August 16 opening].  We expect to get it adjourned unless we should hear from you.  We thought it highly expedient to know your Thoughts on so interesting an Occasion.”

On July 31, the Boston committee responded: “We acknowledge ourselves deeply indebted to your wisdom…  Nothing in our opinion could be better concerted then the measures come by your County to prevent the Courts sitting.”

On August 15, the Berkshire committee prepared a petition, to wit:

To the Honorable His Majesty’s Justices of the Inferior Court of Common Pleas for the County of Berkshire:

…  We view it of the greatest importance to the well-being of this Province, that the people of it utterly refuse the least submission to the said acts, and on no consideration to yield obedience to them; or directly or indirectly to countenance the taking place of those acts amongst us, but resist them to the last extremity.

In order in the safest manner to avoid this threatening calamity, it is, in our opinion, highly necessary that no business be transacted in the law, but that the courts of justice immediately cease, and the people of this Province fall into a state of nature until our grievances are fully redressed by a final repeal of those injurious, oppressive, and unconstitutional acts…  We do therefore remonstrate against the holding any courts in this county until those acts shall be repealed; and we hope your honors will not be of a different opinion from the good people in this county.

Early on the morning of August 16, 1774, as the judges were powdering their wigs and preparing to open the courts, they found that 1500 unarmed men had “filled the Court-House and Avenues to the Seat of Justice, so full, that no Passage could be found for the Justices to take their places.  The Sheriff commanded them to make way for the courts; but they gave him to understand that they knew no court on any other establishment than the ancient laws and usages of their country, & to none other would they submit or give way on any terms.”

The Court did not open, and would never open, again, under British rule.

David Ingersoll “repaired to the Wilderness” to spend the night.  Meanwhile, his house and office were broken into and “his Yard fences, his Garden … House, papers, &c.” were badly damaged.”

Berkshire was the first county to close its courts.

Meanwhile, on August 16, Thomas Gage had boasted that he had gotten twenty-four of the thirty-six “mandamus counselors” signed on.  This was, however, soon to change.

Taunton, Massachusetts – August 22, 1774

Daniel Leonard, one of the “mandamus counselors”, returned to Taunton on August 20.  “[U]pwards of 2000 men met on the green in that town, and but for the expostulations of Leonard’s father (who disapproved of his son’s being a counselor, and promised to use his influence with them that he should resign) would have pulled his house down.”

In a letter to Governor Gage, Leonard explained what had occurred:

On Sunday noon I received intelligence that the People were much exasperated at me, and the Town of Taunton, with the neighboring towns, were to assemble the next day to deal with me (that was the expression) for accepting a Seat at the Board, that it was expected that they would begin with remonstrances and entreaty, and if that proved sufficient to obtain an engagement on my part to resign my Seat, all would be well, if not, that a number had determined to precede to violence.  Such was the intelligence I received and could depend on.  Many things rendered impractical for me to make any resistance in my own house, one of which I beg leave to mention, the situation of my wife, who was pregnant.

I accordingly came as far as Stoughton that date, and the next to Boston, supposing that the People would disperse without giving my family any trouble, when it should be known that I was absent.  But I was mistaken: on the next day which was the 22d Instant, about five hundred persons assembled, many of them Freeholders and some of them Officers in the Militia, and formed themselves into a battalion before my house; they had then no Fire-arms, but generally had clubs.  Some of the principal persons came to my house with a message that the people were much incensed at my accepting the Seat at the Board, and begged I would resign it.  Upon being informed I was not at home, they returned to the main Body, who dispersed before night, after having been treated with rum by their Principals.

My family supposing all would remain quiet, went to bed at their usual hour; at 11:00 o’Clock in the evening a Party fired upon the house with small arms and run off; how many they consisted of is uncertain, I suppose not many; four bullets and some Swan-shot entered the house at the windows, part in a lower room and part in the chamber above, where one Capt. Job Williams lodged…

Capt. Williams at whom the firing seems to have directed, was the person that furnished me with the intelligence that the people were to assemble, and to pull down and tore in pieces a written notification that was fixed on the Meeting House for the People to assemble; wherefore I conclude it probable that the attack upon the house was principally designed for him.  However that may be, my family were exposed by it, and I have received repeated advices from my friends at Taunton, since I arrived at Boston, that my life will be in danger if I return.

Leonard remained on the Council, and in Boston.

Hardwick, Massachusetts – August 26, 1774

Timothy Ruggles, another “mandamus counselor”, was accepted into the court on August 16.  On his way to Boston, he had to bypass Worcester, where “a Number of People collected… to stop him.”

On August 19, Daniel Oliver, the justice of the peace in Hardwick, wrote to Ruggles, “There are those here, who I am satisfied thirst for your blood, and they have influence enough over the others to put them up to spilling it”.  Ruggles, instead of going directly home, went to Dartmouth.

On August 25, the Boston evening post published the following letter:

We hear that a Brigadier Ruggles, one of the new made Counselors, being at Col. Toby’s at Dartmouth, the People assembled there one Day this Week, and ordered him to depart forthwith; upon which the Colonel promised them he would go the next Morning by Sun an Hour high; but before that time the Brigadier’s Horse had his mane and tail cut off, and his body painted all over.

There were also reports from Hardwick that a crowd of 2000 to 3000 was expected to assemble to force the resignation of the local sheriff, and, “such is the Spirit of this County – -they seem to be quite awake, and to have awoke in a passion.  It is more dangerous being a Tory here than in Boston, even if no troops were there.”

Lancaster, Massachusetts – August 25, 1774

Abijah Willard, an accepted counselor from Lancaster, instead of going home from Boston, went to Union, Connecticut.  The patriots in Union captured Willard, made him spend a night in jail, and then returned him to Brimfield, Massachusetts, where he was placed in the hands of 400 patriots.  According to accounts, the local patriots ” called a council of themselves, and Condemned Colonel Willard to Newgate Prison, in Symsbury; and a number set off and carried him six miles on the way thither.  Colonel Willard then submitted to take the oath…, on which they dismissed him.  One Captain Davis of Brimfield was present, who showing resentment, and treating the people with bad language, was stripped, and honored with the new fashion dress of tar and feathers; a proof this, that the act for tarring and feathering is not repealed.”

Willard’s resignation was published in the Boston papers:

Whereas I, Abijah Willard of Lancaster, have been appointed by a Mandamus a Counsellor for this Province, and having without due Consideration taken the Oath, I do now freely and solemnly declare that I am sorry that I have taken the said oath, and do hereby solemnly and in good faith, promise and engage them I will not sit or act in said Council,…  And do hereby ask forgiveness of all honest, and worthy gentlemen that I have offended.

Worcester, Massachusetts – August 27, 1774

The 52 dissenters from Worcester (see The Political Environment), as a result of a town meeting with Whigs in charge, were instructed to recant their “Redmond Dissent”.  Most of the 52 gathered at Mary Stearns’ tavern on August 22, and professed their willingness to recant.  They were told that they must prepare a formal declaration that would be printed in the Boston papers.  The instructions for the declaration included a provision that the signers would declare that the people of Worcester were not acting as a mob.  Forty-seven of those signed the declaration, which sought forgiveness from the people of Worcester.

The town meeting then directed the clerk to obliterate the recorded “Redmond Dissent”.  The clerk complied and drew lines and squiggles through the recorded dissent, completely obliterating it from the record.

The patriots of Worcester still had to deal with three “mandamus counselors”, Timothy Ruggles, Timothy Paine, and John Murray.

On Friday, August 26, riders fanned out from Worcester to alert the surrounding towns of the impending action.  In Leicester, Spencer, Brookfield, Rutland, Westborough, Shrewsbury, Grafton, Sutton, Oxford, and other areas, farmers mustered quickly and prepared to travel to Worcester.  Although Worcester town contained less than 350 adult Males, a crowd estimated at between fifteen hundred to three thousand gathered on the Worcester common, on the morning of August 27.

The crowd selected a committee of five to meet with Timothy Paine.  Paine’s resignation read as follows:

GENTLEMEN, As you have waited upon me as a Committee chosen by a large body of People now assembled on the Common at Worcester, desiring that I now resign my Seat at the Council Board; my Appointment was without sollicitation, and am very sorry I accepted, and thereby given any uneasiness to the People of the County, from whom I have received many favors, and take this opportunity to thank them: and I do hereby assure you that I will not take a Seat at the Board unless it is agreeable to the Charter of this Province.

The gathered crowd, not fully satisfied with the resignation, required that Paine remove his hat and walk amongst the crowd, formed in two lines, reading the resignation, over and over, so that all had the opportunity to hear it from his own mouth.

Paine, apparently impressed by the showing, wrote to General Gage.  He concluded his letter with the following:

Thus Sir you see an open opposition has taken place to the Acts of the British Parliament.  I dread the consequence of enforcing them by military Power; people’s spirits are so raised they seemed determined to risque their lives and everything dear to them in the opposition, and prevent any person from executing any commission he may receive under the present administration.  They give out that Brigadier Ruggles shall not sit as a Judge in our County Court, and that the Court shall not be held here.

Rumor had it that General Gage had contemplated sending troops to assure that the courts opened on September 6.  If true, it is possible that Paine’s letter discouraged this action, fearing that shots would be fired.

Next, about 500 men who had visited Paine went to the home of Thomas Murray, in Rutland, 15 miles away.  About 1000 more joined them as they traveled.  Finding that Murray was not home, the pierced his portrait with a bayonet, and left.  They then prepared a letter, which was published in the Boston papers on September 5:

To John Murray, Esq.

Sir,

As you have proved yourself to be an open Enemy to this Province, by your Conduct in general, and in particular in accepting of the late Appointment as an unconstitutional Counsellor, In Consequence whereof, a large Number of Men from several Towns are assembled, who are fully determined to prevent your holding said Office  as Counsellor, at the Risque of our Lives and Fortunes; and not finding you at Home, think proper to propose to your serious consideration: the following viz:

That you make an immediate Resignation of your Office, as a Counsellor

Your compliance as above, published in each of the Boston News Prints by the Tenth Day of September next, will save the People of this County the Trouble of waiting on you immediately afterwards.

In the Name and Behalf of the whole Assembly now present,

Willard Moore

Murray refused to sign, however, he never did return to Redmond.  Brigadier Timothy Ruggles, likewise, never returned home.

Faneuil Hall, Boston – August 26 & 27, 1774

Worcester County has asked that all of the countryside committees meet with the Boston committee to discuss what action should be taken, if General Gage sent troops to open the courts on September 6.  Realization that one county could not stand against the British troops required that the counties, and Boston, should all work together to stand against the Massachusetts Government Act.  On the 26th, a committee was appointed to discuss “what Measures are necessary to be taken respecting our novel and unconstitutional Courts of Justice”.

The final report of that committee was the beginning of a cooperative agreement to organize against the royal impositions.  It read, in part, “No power on earth, hath a right without the consent of this Province to alter the minutest title of its Charter.”  It asserted that the citizens of Massachusetts were “intitled to life, liberty, and the means of sustenance by the grace of Heaven and without the King’s leave”.  It asked to all of the counties to oppose the openings of the courts.  It called for the convening of the Provincial Congress.  Finally, it called for the people to learn “the Military Art according to the Norfolk Plan… as necessary means to secure their Liberties against the design of the Enemies whether Foreign or Domestick.”

A confederation of counties had agreed to support each other, and, to resist, by whatever means necessary, the imposition of the Massachusetts Government Act.

Roxbury, Massachusetts – August 29, 1774

In the words of Joshua Loring, in a letter to General Gage, dated August 30, 1774:

At 12 o’Clock in the night of the 29th instant I was awaked by a very hard knocking at my door; immediately I jumped out of bed and threw up the window, when I saw five men disguised, their faces black’d, hatts flap’d, with cutlasses in their hands.  I ask them who they were, they answered they came from a Mob.  I then asked them what they wanted; they told me they came to know if I would resign my Seat at the Board.  I answer’d I would not, and went into some discourse with them, asking what right they had to make such a demand on me or any other man.  The told me they did not come to talk, they came to act, and that they wanted my answer: I replied that they had got it already.  They then told me they would give me till tomorrow night to consider of it, and then the speaker gave orders to a large party who were in the road, to discharge their pieces, which the accordingly did, and which I took to be pistols.  They then told me my house should be safe till tomorrow night, and went off in number about 60.

The next night being the 30th I thought it was prudent to leave my house, and my son went out to it to receive the Mob.  He informs me as follows: — that in the evening about ½ past 8 o’Clock his mother came home much affrighted, and told him that at or near Liberty Tree in Roxbury, she saw about fifty men assembled, who immediately on knowing the carriage began to huzza scream and whistle, and called out to the Coachman to stop, but he continued on, and they followed the carriage in this manner for near a mile, and were then close at hand.

About 9 o’Clock he heard their noise, and in a few minutes they were up to the house, and immediately knocked at the door; he went to it and found five men disguised, their faces black’d and cutlasses in their hands: they order’d the candle to be put out, and then ask for the Commodore [Joshua Loring], they said they came for his answer.  He told them he was gone to Boston, and then endeavored to reason with them against their demand, but to no purpose; they said this was the second time they had come, and to beware of the third, that if he would publish in the Thursdays News Paper a Recantation, it would be well, if not, he must abide by the consequences, which would be very severe, that his house would be leveled to the ground, and many other of the like threats; and then these five who seem to have the direction, I can’t say command, of the Mob who were at the gate, retired to them, and during all this time they kept laying on the board fence with clubs, and crying out Don’t fire, for God’s sake don’t fire, keep back, keep back: but the People did not seem to mind them, and continued their hallowing and knocking on the fence with their clubs: all of which was designed to intimidate.

They soon went off, and, as he was informed, to the house of Mr. Pepperell, who not being home, they returned again within the space of half an hour, and in the same tumultuous manner halted in the road opposite the house, and all at once were very silent, occasioned, as he was informed, by some friends speaking to them; a few minutes after they set up their hallowing &c again, and went off.  And as it was a very dark night he could not judge of their numbers, but was told there were about two hundred.

Plymouth, Massachusetts – August 30, 1774

On August 28, 1774, George Watson, mandamus counselor from Plymouth, Massachusetts, went to church as usual.  The Boston evening post reported what happened:

When he came into the house of publick Worship, a great number of the principal Inhabitants of that town left the meeting house, immediately upon his entering it; “being determined not to worship and fellowship with one, who was sworn to support that change of our constitution, which professedly establishes despotism among us”.

On August 30, George Watson sent his resignation to General Gage, to wit:

By my accepting all of this Appointment, I find that I have rendered myself very obnoxious, not only to the inhabitants of this place, but also to those of the neighboring towns.  On my business as a Merchant I depend, for the support of myself and Family, and of this I must be entirely deprived, in short, I am reduced to the alternative of resigning my Seat at the Council Board, or quitting this, the place of my Nativity, which will be attended with the most fatal Consequences to myself, and my family.  Necessity therefore obliges me to ask Permission of your Excellency to resign my Seat at the Board, and I Trust, that when your Excellency considers my Situation, I shall not be censured.

Massachusetts – August 30, 1774

Thomas Hutchinson, Jr., son of the late governor of Massachusetts, also resigned, to wit:

It would be exceedingly inconvenient for me to change the place of my residence, or submit to any kind of restraint upon my person, being the only one of Governor Hutchinson’s family now in the country, and having the care of his affairs here, as well of those of the late Lieut. Governor Oliver, both of which I apprehend will suffer greatly by my being under any personal restraint.  I am sensible these reasons are of a private nature, but as they relate to the concerns of others more than my own, I hope your Excellency will find them sufficient to induce you to accept the Resignation of my trust as one of his Majesty’s Council for this Province.

By the end of August, the mandamus counselors commanded no authority outside of Boston.

Next would come the opening of the courts.  The Governor and Commander-in-Chief, General Thomas Gage, had promised to send troops to protect the courts in Worcester.  The patriots had vowed that the courts would never sit under the authority of the Massachusetts Governments Act.  Who would give?

The Courts

Salem, Massachusetts – August 20, 1774

On Saturday, August 20, the Salem (the Provincial Capitol) Committee, not the town’s selectmen, as was normally the case, posted notices calling for a meeting of the townspeople:

The committee of correspondence desire the merchants, freeholders and other inhabitants of this town to meet at the town house chamber next Wednesday, at nine o’Clock in the morning to appoint five or more deputies, to meet at Ipswich, on the sixth of September next, with the deputies which shall be appointed by the other towns in this county, to consider of and determine on such measures as the late acts of parliament and our other grievances render necessary and expedient.

On Tuesday, the day before the meeting, Governor Gage issued a proclamation:

Whereas by a late Act of Parliament, all Town-Meetings called without the consent of the Governor (except the annual meetings, in the Months of March and May) are illegal, I do hereby strictly prohibit all Persons from attending … any Meeting not warranted by law, as they will be chargeable with all the all consequences that may follow thereon, and answer the same At their utmost Peril.

General Gage, anticipating disobedience to his proclamation, went to Salem with two companies of the 59th regiment, who stopped at the entrance to town and loaded their guns.  The soldiers then continued court the courthouse, “equipped as if for battle”

Cage then summoned the leaders of the Salem Committee to meet with them, at 9:00, the same time as the committee meeting.  They thought that, absent leadership, the committee meeting would be to no avail.

The patriots out smarted General Gage, and, though the leaders attended the meeting with Gage, the Committee went about its business and selected six representatives to the county convention.

General Gage retaliated by ordering Judge Peter Frye to issue warrants for the Committee members who had called the meeting, charging them with “seditiously and unlawfully causing the town to be assembled by those notifications, without leave from the governor, in open contempt of the laws, against the peace, and the late statute.”

The first to patriots brought into custody posted bail, but the next five refused, defiantly telling General Gage “if the ninetieth part of a farthing would be taken as bail, they would not give it.”  They then responded to the Governor’s threat: “if he committed them, then he must abide by the consequences.”

As reported by John Andrews, “there was upwards of three thousand men assembled there from the adjacent towns, with full determination to rescue the Committee if they should be sent to prison, even if they were obliged to repel force with force, being sufficiently provided for such a purpose; as indeed they are all through the county — every male above the age of 16 possessing a firelock with double the quantity of powder and ball injoin’d by law.”

So, here, nearly eight months before the bloody showdown at Lexington Green, patriots stood, armed, against British soldiers, testing the resolve of each side.

Springfield, Massachusetts – August 30, 1774

On Friday, August 26, delegates from the 25 towns in Hampshire County assembled in Hadley, home of a 130-foot Liberty Pole.  Their options included petitioning the judges to adjourn; disrupting the court physically; or, trying to convince the judges to meet under the authority of the old Charter instead of the Massachusetts Government Act.  They decided to ask the judges themselves under what authority did they hold their offices.

By Monday, August 29, the judges, justices of the peace, of lawyers, and various officials with business before the court had arrived in Springfield.

Early Tuesday morning, they heard the tolling of the West Springfield bell — the signal for patriots to gather.  Between two and four thousand men, many carrying staves, mustered about the courthouse, where they hoisted a black flag to threaten the judges away.

The judges and justices bypassed the courthouse and convened at a public house nearby, where they received a committee of delegates from the demonstrators.  The delegates ask them, how did they hold their authority, by the Charter or by the Act?  The judges responded, “We consider and judge ourselves to hold our offices …  by virtue and force of the Charter”.  They then claimed that the late Act of Parliament had not made a significant alteration in their authority.

The delegates took the justices reply outside where it was read three times to the people assembled.  The people talked, discussed, debated, and finally concluded, by a vote, that the answer was not satisfactory.  They then decided that the court would not sit.  The delegates returned to the justices and told them that they would not set contrary to the minds of the people.

The justices signed a petition, to wit:

“We, the subscribers, do severally promise and solemnly engage to all people now assembled, in the county of Hampshire, on the 30th Day of August 1774, that we will never take, hold, execute, or exercise any Commission, Office, or Employment whatsoever, under, or in Virtue of or in any Manner derived from any Authority, or pretended or attempted to be given by a late Act of Parliament, entitled ‘An Act for better regulating the Government of the Province of Massachusetts-Bay, in New England’.

The petition was signed by eighteen judges and justices.

Concord, Massachusetts – August 30, 1774

On August 30, over 150 delegates from every town and district of Middlesex County gathered at Concord to consult on measures to be taken.  First, the Massachusetts Government Act was read in its entirety.  The convention then chose nine members to draft an appropriate response.  It reads, in part:

It is evident to every attentive mind, that this province is in a very dangerous and alarming situation.  We are obliged to say, however painful it may be to us, that the question now is, whether, by a submission to some late acts of the parliament of Great Britain, we are contented to be the most abject slaves, and entail that slavery on posterity after us, or by a manly, joint, and virtuous opposition, and support our freedom.  There is a mode of conduct, which in our very critical circumstances, we would wish to adopt; a conduct, on the one hand, never to tamely submissive to tyranny and oppression, on the other, never degenerating into rage, passion, and confusion.  This is a spirit which we revere, as we find it exhibited in former ages, and will command applause to the latest posterity.

The report continued, providing instructions not to recognize any aspect of the Massachusetts Government Act, to continue to conduct local business as has always been done, and, all acts by the people must be justified by God and the world.

The stage was set for the September 13 court opening.

Worcester, Massachusetts – August 30, 1774

In preparation for dealing with the court closures, 130 men attended the Worcester convention.  The next morning, in what can be described as a democratically spirited proceeding, the following was approved:

Voted, that every person who speaks in this meeting shall rise up, and, after he is done speaking, shall sit down, and not speak more than twice on the same subject, without obtaining leave, and shall not speak irreverently.

Their first resolution stated their purpose, “that it is the indispensible duty of the inhabitants of this county, by the best ways and means, to prevent the sitting of the respective courts.”  They then “recommended to the inhabitants of this county, to attend, in person,” the court sessions, and to maintain order, and then “recommended to the several towns, that they choose proper and suitable officers, and a sufficient number, to regulate the movements of each town, and prevent any disorder which might otherwise happen”.  They were determined not to be perceived as a “Mob”.

Since “the ordinary course of justice may be stayed”, they encouraged that each individual should “pay his just debts as soon as may be possible, without any disputes or litigation.”

The final point addressed was in anticipation of what had been threatened, previously, by General Gage:

That whereas, it is generally expected, that the governor will send one or more regiments to enforce the execution of the acts of parliament, on the 6th of September, that it is recommended to the inhabitants of this county, if there is intelligence, that troops are on the march to Worcester, to attend, properly armed, in order to repel any hostile force which may be employed for that purpose.

Concerned that only Worcester was to be protected, the delegates’ final resolution, to wit:

That if there is an invasion, or danger of invasion, in any town in this county, then such town as is invaded, or being in danger thereof, shall, by their committee of correspondence, or some other proper person, send letters, by express post, immediately, to the committees of the adjoining towns, who shall send to other committees in the towns adjoining them, that they all come properly armed and accoutred to protect and defend the place invaded.

Finally, they resolved:

Voted, That it be recommended to each town of the county, to retain in their own hands, what moneys may be due from them severally to the province treasury…

Voted, That each member will purchase at least two pounds of powder in addition to any he may have on hand, and will use all his exertions to supply his neighbor fully.

Voted, That the members and delegates endeavor to ascertain what number of guns are deficient to arm the people in case of invasion.

There is no doubt that the citizens of Worcester were prepared to defend their constitutional rights and their Charter.  There is also no doubt that General Gage was aware of what was happening in the countryside.  On August 27, he had written to Lord Dartmouth:

In Worcester, they keep no Terms, openly threaten Resistance by Arms, have been purchasing Arms, preparing them, casting Ball, and providing Powder, and threaten to attack any Troops who dare to oppose them.  Mr. Ruggles of the new Council is afraid to take his Seat as Judge of the inferior Court, which sits at Worcester on the 7th [actually, the 6th] of next Month, and I apprehend that I shall soon be obliged to march a Body of Troops into that Township, and perhaps into others, as occasion happens, to preserve the Peace.

Boston, Massachusetts – August 30, 1774

General Gage attended the Superior Court of the Judicature in Boston, Suffolk County — the only place that the Court could be safely opened.  As the Boston Gazette reported, on September 5:

Last Tuesday being the day the Superior Court was to be holden here, the Chief Justice, Peter Oliver, Esq., and the other Justices of said Court, together with a number of gentlemen of the bar, attended by the High and Deputy Sheriffs, walked in procession from the state-house to the court-house, in Queen-street.  When the Court were seated and the usual proclamations made, a list of names of the gentleman returned to serve as Grand Jurors, was presented to them, and the court appointed Mr. Ebenezer Hancock, Foreman.

However, when Ebenezer Hancock rose to be sworn in, he declined.  The remaining 22 grand jurors also refused to take the oath.  When ask why they refuse to take the oath, they referred to previously prepared document, which made the case that Peter Oliver, sitting as Chief Justice, was against the Charter.

The superior court continued to meet through Friday, conducting “such business as is usually transacted, without the juries”.  General Gage, at least, could show that some functions of government were still proceeding.

On Wednesday, August 31, General Gage tried to convene his council.  Three days later, Gage wrote to Dartmouth, “I ordered a council to assemble, but upon their representation, that they should be watched, stopped, and insulted on the road to Salem, they desire to be assembled here in Boston”.  Only 15 of the original 36 attended.

General Gage presented to them, for their vote, the pressing decision he had to make within a week:

…  Whether they would advise to the sending of any troops into the County of Worcester, or any other County in the Province, for the protection of the Judges and other Officers of the Courts of Justice.  Whereupon several Gentlemen of the Council expressed their Opinions, that insomuch as the opposition to the execution of any part of the late Acts of Parliament relating to this Province, was so general, they apprehended it would not be for His Majesty’s service to send any Troops into the interior parts of the Province, but that the main body continue in the Town of Boston, which might be strengthened by the addition of all other Troops, to be improved as circumstances may occur, and be a place of safe retreat for all those who may find it necessary to remove thither.

On September 2, General Gage, again, wrote to Dartmouth:

I came here [to Boston] to attend the superior Court, and in the Intention to send a Body of Troops to Worcester, to protect the Courts there, and if wanted to send Parties to the Houses of some of the Counsellors who dwell in that County, but [I heard] from undoubted Authorities, that the Flames of Sedition had spread universally throughout the Country beyond Conception, the Counsellors already drove away, and that no Courts could proceed on Business…

The Council was of Opinion that it was very improper to weaken the Troops here by any Detachments whatever, as they could not be of any Use to the Courts, as no Jurors wou’d appear, and by that Means defeat their Proceedings, and that Disturbance among so general, and not confined to any particular spot, there was no knowing where to send them to be of Use.

Cambridge, Massachusetts – September 2, 1774

On the evening of August 31, Boston patriots noticed significant troop movement, in and around Boston.  Concerned that they might be going to Salem to arrest the Committee members, word was sent to Salem.

The Salem Committee responded that they were ready “to receive any attack they might be exposed to for acting in pursuance to the laws and interest of their country, as became men and christians”.

The Boston Evening-Post (September 5) tells us the purpose of the troop movements :

On Thursday Morning, half after four, about 260 Troops embarked on 13 boats at the Long Wharf, and proceeded up Mystic River to Temple’s Farm, where they landed, and went to the Powder-House on Quarry Hill, in Charleston Bounds, where they took 212 Half Barrels of Powder, the whole store there, and conveyed it to Castle Williams.  A detachment from this corps went to Cambridge and brought off two field pieces.

General Gage had been notified that the patriots had begun seizing powder from various stores, and sought to head them off, at least, where it could be safely accomplished.

These events, however, had an impact on the patriot side.  On Friday morning (September 2), by 8 O’clock, over 3,000 farmers had arrived at Cambridge Common, and, “more were on the way.”  They had left their firearms, but most were equipped with “large sticks”(Later reports indicate that between 1/4 and 1/2 of the patriots were armed).  They wanted to show their strength, but they did not want to confront the British.

In Boston, word spread that tens of thousands of country people were on their way to Boston.  John Andrew wrote:

Four or five expresses have come down to Charlestown and here [Boston], to acquaint us, that between Sudbury and this, above ten thousand men are in arms and are continually coming down from the country back: that their determination is to collect about forty or fifty thousand by night (which they are sure of accomplishing) when they intend to bring in about fifteen thousand by way of the Neck, and as many more over the ferry: when once got possession, to come in like locusts and rid the town of every soldier.

In an effort to ward of an open confrontation, the Cambridge Committee contacted Lieutenant Governor Thomas Oliver, as described by Oliver:

Early in the morning a number of the inhabitants of Charlestown called at my house to acquaint me that a large body of people from several towns in the county were on their way coming down to Cambridge; that they were afraid some bad consequences might ensue, and begged I would go out to meet them, and endeavor to prevail on them to return.  In a very short time, before I could prepare myself to go, they appeared in sight.  I went out to them, and asked the reason of their appearance in that manner; they respectfully answered, they “came peaceably to inquire into their grievances, not with design to hurt any man.”  I perceived they were landholders of the neighboring towns, and was thoroughly persuaded they would do no harm.  I was desired to speak to them; I accordingly did, in such a manner as I thought best calculated to their minds.  They thanked me for my advice, said they were no mob, but sober, orderly people, who would commit no disorder; and then proceeded on their way.  I returned to my house

Soon after they had arrived on the Common at Cambridge, a report arose that the troops were on their march from Boston; I was desired to go and intercede with his Excellency to prevent their coming.  From principles of humanity to the country, from a general love of mankind, and from persuasions that they were orderly people, I readily undertook it; and is there a man on earth, who, placed in my circumstances, could have refused it?…  As I passed the people I told them, of my own accord, I would return and let them know the event of my application.

Still concerned, the Cambridge Committee sent dispatches to Charlestown and Boston.  Joseph Warren, of the Boston Committee, wrote:

A billet was brought, requesting me to take some steps in order to prevent the people from coming to immediate acts of violence, as incredible numbers were in arms, and lined the roads from Sudbury to Cambridge.  I summoned the committee of correspondence; but, as care had been taken to caution every man who passed the ferry from alarming Boston, I judged it best not to inform the person who warned the committee of the business they were to meet upon.  They, therefore, made no great haste to get together.  After waiting some time, I took as many of the members as came in my way to Charlestown, fearing that something amiss might take place.  I saw the gentleman at Charlestown, who begged us to move forward to Cambridge.  On our way, we met the Lieutenant-governor Oliver.  He said he was going to the general, to desire him not to march his troops out of Boston.  We thought this precaution good, and proceeded to Cambridge.

Later, while awaiting word of General Gage’s intentions, the Boston Committee met with delegates from the country towns.  The meeting was held at Captain Steadman’s inn.  The Boston committee members were surprised that the delegates had been selected, that day, for that purpose.  Boston had leaders who would drink ale and decide what the crowds would do.  The country people, however, were participatory, and the leaders were selected, for each circumstance, and only for that particular event.  Unlike what had been occurring in Boston, these events were truly of the people.

General Gage, at Oliver’s request, decided not to march the troops.  Gage, after having obtained as much information as possible, determined that the crowd was “not a Boston rabble but the freeholders and farmers of the country”.

Even though Oliver had aided the patriots in avoiding a confrontation, he was, later that afternoon, forced to resign his appointment as Lieutenant Governor.  His resignation effectively destroyed the government implemented by the Massachusetts Government Act.

The people, as a whole — not through the leaders in Boston — had gained the initiative and control in the revolution, which would, in eight more months, result in a War of Independence.

The Powder Alarm, New England – September 2, 1774

As word spread, throughout the northern colonies, of the the events in Cambridge, Charlestown and Boston, farmers and merchants dropped their work and picked up their arms. They began a massive march toward the Massachusetts Bay. Their alarm was supported by rumors, gaining momentum as the stories of what was transpiring traveled out and away from the more organized negotiations in Boston and Cambridge.

Though estimates vary on the number of those who went to Cambridge, as well as those on the march toward what rumor had provided for, they range from a minimum of twenty thousand to a maximum of “near one hundred thousand”.

As far as the distance to which the rumors carried, and caused alarm, an account by Mr. McNeil, from Litchefield, Connecticut, as given to the Reverend Ezra Stiles, is as follows:

[McNeil] went to bed without hearing any Thing.  But about midnight or perhaps one o’Clock he was suddenly waked up, somebody violently rapping up the Landlord, telling the doleful Story that the Powder was taken, six men killed, & all the people between there & Boston arming & marching down to the Relief of their Brethren at Boston; and within a qr. or half an hour he judges fifty men were collected at the Tavern tho’ now deep in Night, equipping themselves & sending off Posts every Way to the neighboring Towns.  They called up McNeil to tell the Story of the Springfield Affair which was News ‑ he said he had to repeat and tell the story over & over again to New Comers till day; so he had no more Rest that night.  The Men set off as fast as they were equipt.

In the Morning, being fryday Sept. 2, Mr. McNeil rode forward & passed thro’ the whole at the very Time of the Convulsion.  He said he never saw such a Scene before ‑ all along were armed Men rushing forward some on foot some on horseback, at every house Women & Children making Cartridges, running Bullets, making Wallets, baking Biscuit, crying & bemoaning &at the same time animating their Husbands & Sons to fight for their Liberties, tho’ not knowing whether they should ever see them again.  I asked whether the Men were Cowards or disheartened or appeared to want Courage?  No. Whether the tender Distresses of weeping Wives & Children softened effeminated & overcome the Men and set them Weeping to?  No ‑ nothing of this ‑ but a firm and intrepid Ardor, hardy eager & couragious Spirit of Enterprize, a Spirit for revenging the Blood of their Brethren & rescue our Liberties, all this & an Activity corresponding with such Emotions appeared all along the whole Tract of above fourty Miles from Shrewsbury to Boston.

The Women kept on making Cartridges, & after equipping their Husbands, bro’t them out to the Soldiers which in Crowds passed along & gave them out in handfuls to one and another as they were deficient, mixing Exhortation & Tears & Prayers & spiriting the Men in such an uneffeminate Manner as even would make Cowards fight.  He tho’t if anything the Women surpassed the Men for Eagerness & Spirit in the Defence of Liberty by Arms.  For they had no Tho’ts of the Men returning but from Battle, for they all believed the Action commenced between the Kings Troops & the Provincials.  The Women under this Assurance gave up their Husbands Sons &c to Battle & bid them fight courageously & manfully & behave themselves bravely for Liberty ‑ commanding them to behave like Men & not like Cowards to be of good Courage & play the men for our people & for the Cities of our God ‑ & the Lord do as seemeth him good.  They expected a bloody Scene, but they doubted not Success & Victory.

McNeil never saw any Thing like this in his Life: ‑ he said, they scarcely left half a dozen Men in a Town, unless old and decrepid, and in one town the Landlord told him that himself was the only Man left.”

Worcester, Massachusetts – September 6, 1774

If General Gage were to keep his word and use troops to assure that the courts would open, in Worcester County, on September 6, the patriots, especially after the excitement and commitment during the Powder Alarm, were ready to assure that the courts would not open.  The lines were drawn, and the stakes were high.

Many of the people who were to be in Worcester must have left their homes on the 4th, to assure that they would be present on the 6th.  They came from as far away as 35 miles (Royalston), and they came on foot.

By Tuesday morning (September 6), 4, 622 men had arrived in Worcester.  Ebenezer Parkman’s diary provides the following accounting:

Worcester     260     Uxbridge     156     Westborough     200

Rutland     150     Athol     51     Royalston     39

New Braintry     140     Brookfield     216     Duglass     130

Grafton     210     Holden     100     Hardwick     220

Princeton     60     Harvard     103     Hubbardston     55

Lunenbourg     40     Western     100     Winchendon     45

Southboro     35     Chauxitt     200     Leicester     180

Spencer     164     Sturbridge     150     Bolton     100

Palmer     38     Sutton     500     Westminster     120

Oxford Troop     40     N. Shrewsbury     100     S. Shrewsbury     135

Northboro     85     Oxford     80     Oakham     50

Petersham     70     Paxton     80     Upton     100

Templeton     120

Though most of the participants had left home with their firearms, when word came that General Gage was not sending his troops (Gage only had 3,000 troops in garrison), most of the rifles were stored at homes outside of Worcester, or with homes or businesses in town.  Staves became the weapon of choice, and music was played by fife and drum.  Only a few men still had arms.

Most of the men from Worcester and Spencer had barricaded themselves inside of the courthouse, by 10 O’clock, to prevent the judges and other officials from entering.

Representatives from each of the various town Committees met at the home of Timothy Bigelow, to coordinate the activities of the day.  Their first decision, however, was “to attend the body of the people” outside, leaving the decisions not to the leaders, but to the people, themselves.

Meanwhile, a local merchant did a phenomenal business — “more than ever before”.  On Sunday, he took in £173, for “Powder &c.”, Monday was £97, and, on Tuesday, £300, as thousands of militiamen prepared for what might come.

The officers of the court (3 judges of the Inferior Court; 18 justices of the peace, 2 attorneys; and, the Sheriffs), having been locked out of the courthouse, had taken up at Daniel Heywood’s tavern, to await communication from the committee.  Their first effort at a statement used the term, “would endeavor &c.”, was too weak for those who had travelled so far.  The second document, signed by all twenty-five officers, follows:

GENTLEMEN: — You having desired, and even insisted upon it, that all judicial proceedings be stayed by the justices of the court appointed this day, by law, to be held at Worcester, on account of the unconstitutional act of the British parliament, respecting the administration of justice in this province, which, if effected, will reduce the inhabitants thereof to mere arbitrary power; we do assure you, that we will stay all such judicial proceedings of said courts, and will not endeavor to put said act into execution.

Sufficient to satisfy those who had attend to see the courts remain closed, the next act was to require all of the justices to walk the line, between all of those gathered, with hats in hand, reading, over and over (some estimates were that the statement was read, by each, thirty times), their statement — so that all could hear.  And, as a final affront to the Tories, all known Tories in town were required to march with the justices.

The British troops had stayed away, no blood had been shed, and, all of the goals of the patriots had been achieved.  There was no doubt as to who was in control of Worcester County.

Worcester, Massachusetts – September 7, 1774

Having dealt with the problem of the judges and the court, the people of Worcester were left without a formal government, nor with a way to deal with problems that might arise.

A Provincial convention had been called for on the second Tuesday of October, less than two months away.  In the meantime, an interim government was needed.

The County Convention that had convened to deal with not allowing the seating of the courts, took matters into their own hand (defiant of any British objections to the contrary).  They recalled the justices of the peace who were in office under the original Charter, with the exception of those who had proven inimical to their cause.  They allowed them to sit as single judges, though not sit as a court, and, they were only to deal with criminal, not civil cases.  The coroners, sheriffs, and probate judges would also continue in office.

The most significant authority presumed by the Convention was to require resignations from all of the militia officers.  Often, however, if the old officer was a patriot, he would be returned to duty.  They procured at least one field piece, with mount and fitted for use and sufficient ammunition for same.

They were preparing to defend what they had gained.

Boston, Massachusetts – September 6-12, 1774

General Gage, having seen the strength of the patriots by the closure of courts; the resignations; the failure to stop the town meeting in Salem; and, the resignation of his Lieutenant Government, Thomas Oliver, was determined to regain control in the colony.

His first step was to fortify the Boston Neck (a narrow piece of land connecting Boston to the mainland).  He had only 3,000 soldiers, and the patriots’ forces outnumbered them, substantially.  He had to protect his garrison.

According to John Andrew:

The alarm caus’d by the movement of the country has induc’d the Governor to order a number of field pieces up to the neck guard, and this morning has got a number of workmen there, to build blockhouses and otherways repair the fortification.  It was reported that he was going to cut a canal across and break off the communication with the country other than by bridge; in consequence of which the Select men waited upon him.  He assur’d them he had no intention to break ground, but was only about securing the entrance into the Town, that the inhabitants as well as the soldiers may not be expos’d to inroads from the country.

The patriots in Boston were worried that General Gage was going to make a garrison of the whole town.  They were also concerned that the guarding of the neck, and passively detaining the few who went from country to town, might discourage the flow of goods necessary, from the country, to sustain life in Boston (under embargo because of the Port Bill).

Andrews also provided some insight into the additional precautions that General Gage was making to avoid being attacked by the patriots who outnumbered his forces.

Andrews gave a running account of General Gage’s efforts at fortification and the response of local patriots:

September 6th… The townspeople are in general very uneasy and dissatisfied with the Governor’s fortifying the entrance; so much so, they cant get any one workman to assist ’em.  They’ve got an engineer from New York, who is trying what he can do with a number of carpenters and masons out of the army.  They talk of sending to New York for a number of mechanics to affect it: It is my opinion, if they are wise, they wont come….

September 8th…. Yesterday, between one and two o’clock P.M., the General, with a large parade of attendants, took a survey of the skirts of the town; more particularly that part opposite the country shore.  ‘Tis suppos’d they intend to erect Batteries there to prevent any incursions of the country people from that quarter, having effectually secur’d the Neck by the disposition of the field pieces; and their caution extends so far as to have a guard patrole Roxbury streets at all hours of the night, as well as another posted at Charlestown ferry every night, after the evening gun fires ….

September 9th …. [N]otwistanding the six field pieces planted at ye Neck, they have brought twelve cannon from the Castle, some nine and some four pounders, which they have dispos’d about the entrance of the town.  And this is not the only proof of their fear; for I am well inform’d that they keep so many and such strict guards of nights, that the soldiers don’t get but one undisturb’d night’s sleep out of four.

September 10th.  They have drawn off the whole of the troops from Salem, and the Board of Commissioners, with the Governor’s family and furniture, are all arriv’d here, not thinking themselves secure in a town surrounded by the country as that is….

September 12th…. The General has set about two hundred soldiers to work upon the fortifications this morning…. Many of the inhabitants are serious about leaving the town, as they are in general apprehensive that when the Governor has sufficiently fortified it, military Law will be declar’d, and no one suffer’d to go out but by his permission, notwithstanding what he may have said to the contrary.  There is no knowing, Bill, what may take place with us.  For my own part, I endeavor to make myself as easy as I can; but if they should come to disarming the inhabitants, the matter is settled with the town at once; for blood and carnage must inevitably ensue ‑ which God forbid!  should ever take place.’

Charlestown, Massachusetts – September 15, 1774

Again, John Andrews provides some insight into the patriots’ efforts to assure that they were well armed:

Ever since ye cannon were taken away from Charlestown, the General has order’d a double guard to ye new and old gun houses, where ye brass field pieces belonging to our militia are lodg’d: notwithstanding which, the vigilance and temerity of our people has entirely disconcerted him, for We’n’sday evening, or rather night, they took these from the Old house (by opening the side of the house) and carried away through Frank Johnnot’s Garden.  Upon which he gave it in orders the next day to the officer on guard to remove those from the New house (which stands directly opposite the encampment of the 4th Regiment and in the middle of the street near the large Elm tree), sometime the next night into the camp; and to place a guard at each end, or rather at both doors, till then.  At the fixed hour the Officer went with a number of Mattrosses to execute his orders, but behold, the guns were gone!  He swore the Devil must have help’d them to get away.  However, they went to work, and brought off the carriages, harness, utensils, &ca., which they reposited in the Camps.  Its amazing to me how our people manag’d to carry off the guns, as they weigh near seven hundred weight apiece; more especially that they should do it, and not alarm the guards.

There is little doubt that the patriots were preparing for war.  Their deeds were not light. Their preparations — were for War.

General Gage was becoming very concerned over these events.  In a letter to Lord Dartmouth:

Nothing less than Conquest of almost all the New England Provinces will procure Obedience to the late Acts of Parliament for regulating the Government of the Massachusetts Bay…  The Country People are exercising in Arms in this Province, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, and getting Magazines of Arms and Ammunition in the Country, and such Artillery, as they can procure good and bad.  They threaten to attack the Troops in Boston, and are very angry at the Work throwing up at the entrance of the Town…

Had the Measures for regulating this Government been adopted seven Years ago, they would have been easier executed, but the executive Parts of Government have gradually been growing weaker from about that period, and the People more lawless and seditious…  My first Object was to give it Force, in which I hoped to have made some Progress, when the Arrival of the late Acts overset the whole, and the Flame blazed out in all Parts at once beyond the conception of every Body.

The well-laid plans of the British Empire had been put aside by the patriots that believed that government has an obligation to abide by its contract with the people.

And, for those who continued to support the Crown, Andrews explains:

The present temper of the People throughout the Province is such, that they wont suffer a tory to remain any where among ’em without making an ample recantation of his principles; and those who presume to be so obstinate as not to comply, are oblig’d to take up their residence in this city [Boston] of refuge.

Braintree, Massachusetts – September 14, 1774

Abigail Adams (wife of John Adams) reports, “The church parson thought they were coming after him, and run up garret they say, an other jumped out of his window and hid among the corn whilst a third crept under his bord fence, and told his beads.”

Weston, Massachusetts – September 14, 1774

Colonel Elisha Jones, 65-year-old father of 14 sons, was humiliated by 300 men who “made his Mightiness walk through their Ranks with his Hat off and express his Sorrow for past Offenses, and promise not to be Guilty of the like for the future.”

Concord, Massachusetts – September 19, 1774

Joseph Lee, a Concord physician, had sought to carry warning to the government, on September 1, as the locals prepared to march to Cambridge.  Though the force used to elicit the following letter is unknown, on September 19, he signed (though probably did not write) the following:

Whereas I, Joseph Lee, of Concord, Physician, on the Evening of the 1st ult, did rashly and without Consideration, make a private and precipitate journey from Concord to Cambridge, to inform judge Lee, that the Country was assembling to come down… that he & others concern’d might prepare themselves for the Event, and with an avowed Intention to deceive the People; by which the Parties assembling might have been exposed to the brutal Rage of the Soldiery, who had timely Notice to have waylaid the Roads and fired on them while unarmed and Defenceless in the dark.

By which imprudent Conduct, I might have prevented the salutary Designs of my Countrymen, whose innocent intentions were only to request certain Gentlemen, sworn into Office on the new system of Government, to resign their Offices, in order to prevent the Operation of that (so much detested) Act of the British Parliament for regulating the Civil Government of the Massachusetts Bay: By all of which I have justly drawn upon me the displeasure of my Country.

When I cooly reflect on my own imprudence, it fills my Mind with the deepest Anxiety.

I deprecate the resentment of my injured Country, humbly confess my Errors, and implore the Forgiveness of a generous and free People.  Solemnly declaring that the future, never to convey any intelligence to any of the Court Party, whether directly or indirectly, by which the design of the People may be frustrated in opposing the barbarous Policy, of an arbitrary, wicked and corrupt Administration.

Joseph Lee

Essex County, Massachusetts – September 6 – 7, 1774

The Essex County Convention resolved:

[T]hat the judges, justices, and other civil officers in this county [which included the colonial capitol of Salem], appointed agreeably to the charter and the laws of the province, are the only civil officers in the county whom we may lawfully obey; that no authority whatever, can remove these officers, except that which is constituted pursuant to the charter and those laws; that it is the duty of these officers to continue in the execution of their respective trusts, as if the aforementioned act [Massachusetts Government Act] of parliament had never been made; and, that while they thus continue untainted by any official conduct in conformity to that act, we will vigorously support them therein, to the utmost of our power, indemnify them in their persons and property, and to their lawful doings a ready obedience.

Essex had determined to allow officers to sit, but only in accordance with the Charter.  The convention, however, made clear their position by further resolving, “that all civil officers in the province, as well as private persons, who shall dare to conduct in conformity to the aforementioned act… are unfit for civil society; their lands ought not be tilled by the labor of any American, nor their family supplied with clothing or food”.

They concluded their convention with this statement of the determination of their convictions:

[T]hough we are deeply anxious to restore and preserve harmony with our brethren in Great Britain; yet, if the despotism and violence of our enemies should finally reduce us to the sad necessity, we, undaunted, are ready to appeal to the last resort of states; and will, in support of our rights, encounter even death.  Sensible that he can never die too soon, who lays down his life in support of the laws and liberties of his country.

Essex County was endeavoring to continue the Charter government and denounced and refused to serve those who were not.  They did, however, allow that, should the progression of events require, they would lay down their lives to retain that which was theirs.

Suffolk County, Massachusetts – September 6 – 9, 1774

Suffolk County (which included Boston) was not controlled by the patriots, unlike most of the other counties in Massachusetts.  Nevertheless, in Dedham and Milton, the two towns where the convention was to be held, they had quite a bit of influence.

Though that influence was not sufficient to close the courts, it was sufficient to approve what became known as the Suffolk Resolves:

Whereas, the power, but not the justice; the vengeance, but not the wisdom of Great Britain, which of old persecuted, scourged, and exiled our fugitive parents from their native shores, now pursues us, their guiltless children, with unrelenting severity: and whereas this, then savage and uncultivated desert, was purchased by the toil and treasure, or acquired by the valor and blood of those, our venerable progenitors, who bequeathed to us the dear bought inheritance, who consigned it to our care and protection; the most sacred obligations are upon us to transmit the glorious purchase, unfettered by power, unclogged with shackles, to our innocent and beloved offspring.

Ultimately, the Resolves contained provisions that:

• They opposed both the Massachusetts Government Act and the Boston Port Bill, stating that “no obedience is due from this province, to either or any part of the acts above mentioned; but that they should be rejected as the attempts of a wicked administration to enslave America.”
• Although they did not have the power to close the courts, they recommended that “no regard ought to be paid to them by the people of this county,” and that officers of the court or jurors who refused to serve would receive their support.
• They recommended that taxes not be paid to the officers of the established government “until the civil government of the province is placed upon a constitutional basis.”
• They demanded resignations from all “mandamus counsellors”; those who failed to comply by September 20 would “be considered by this county as obstinate and incorrigible enemies to this colony.”
• They opposed the fortification of the Boston Neck and appointed a committee to carry their protest to Governor Gage.
• They objected to the Quebec Act, claiming that the legalization of the Catholic Church in Canada was “dangerous in an extreme degree, to the protestant religion, and to the civil liberties of all America.”
• They recommended “to take away all commissions from the officers of the militia, and that new officers be elected by the people.
• The Resolves were sent to the Continental Congress, where they arrived on September 16, and were approved and encouraged by a unanimous vote of the Congress
• They advocated yet another nonconsumption agreement against “British merchandize and manufactures.”
• Like the other conventions, they endorsed a convening of a Provincial Congress in October.
• They promised to “pay all due respect” to the Continental Congress sitting in Philadelphia, and to submit to their decisions.

Finally, as was characteristic of all the county conventions, they opposed “all routs, riots, or licentious attacks upon the property of any persons whatsoever.”  They held that “in a contest so important, in a cause so solemn, our conduct shall be such as to merit the approbation of the wise, and the admiration of the brave and free of every age and of every country.”

Plymouth, Massachusetts – September 26 – 27, 1774

The Plymouth County Committee met in the Plymouth courthouse, the week before the courts were scheduled to open.  Though their resolutions were similar to those of other counties, they also planned the mobilization for October 4, when the courts were supposed to open.

On that day (October 4), between two and four thousand men “stiling themselves  the body of the people, took possession of the court-house and the avenues leading up to it, and presented the courts of General Sessions of the peace and court of common pleas from sitting or proceeding to business.”  Accordingly, the presented the justices with the resolution from the convention, to which the justices replied:

That we do not now, nor will, at any time hereafter, hold or exercise our Commission in any other Way than what is prescribed by our Charter and well-known Constitution; and that we will not in any Way countenance, aid or support the Execution of the late Acts of Parliament for altering the Charter and Government of the Province.

To the patriots, this pledge was insufficient.  They told the justices that it was “inexpedient” for the courts to open.  The justices responded, “We will not open, set, act or do, or adjourn either of said Courts, ‘till the Determination of the Continental Congress is known.

The justices had acquiesced to the decision to be forthcoming from an illegal body, which was acting without any recognized authority except that of the people.

The patriots, still not fully satisfied, required that known Tories, or, any who has signed addresses to Hutchinson and General Gage, would also recant, resign, and give up any military commission they might hold – which they did, for fear of their lives.

Worcester, Massachusetts – September 20 – 21, 1774

The Worcester County Convention met to discuss filling the void created by the absence of the royal government.  Nobody was surprised that General Gage had not ordered the courts to open.  After all, Worcester was the hotbed of the resistance to the Acts of Parliament.

The Convention ordered the Sheriff, though unnecessarily, to “adjourn the superior court appointed by law to be held this day, and then got on to their appointed business.

First, they had to deal with debt.  They called upon the farmers (struggling under heavy debt burdens), for:

Every inhabitant of this county to pay his just debts, as soon as possible, without any dispute or litigation, and if any disputes concerning debts or trespass should arise, which cannot be settled by the parties, we recommend it to them to submit all such cases to arbitration; and if the parties, or either of them, shall refuse to do so, they ought to be considered as co-operating with the enemies of the country.

They then proceeded, since they were able to influence the justices of the peace to do so, to “liberate any persons confined in jail for debts, who are entitled to such liberation by the laws of the province”.

They then began preparations for the inevitable; they reorganized the militia into seven new regiments.  There was no legal authority for them to do so, but they did it, anyway — necessity and anticipation of the coming conflict overriding the law, even under the Charter.

They called for each of the towns in the county to arm itself “with one or more field pieces.  Mounted and fitted for use.”

They proceeded to arrange for all of the towns in the county to call for conventions, as necessary, “to prepare matters to lay before this body at their several meetings”.  They had, essentially, created the first, independent of British control, county government in the United States.

Worcester County, Massachusetts – October 4, 1774

Timothy Bigelow was appointed as a delegate for Worcester County, at the soon to be held Provincial Congress.  He was provided instructions, by the Convention, to carry to that Congress:

If all infractions of our rights, by acts of the British Parliament, be not redressed, and we restored to the full enjoyment of all our privileges, contained in the charter of this province, issued by their late majesties, King William and Queen Mary, to a punctillo; before the day of your meeting [October 5, the next day], then, and in that case, you are to consider the people of this province absolved, on their part, from the obligation therein contained, and to all intents and purposes reduced to a state of nature; and you are to exert yourself in devising ways and means to raise from the dissolution of the old constitution, as from the ashes of the Phenix, a new form, wherein all officers shall be dependent on the suffrage of the people for their existence as such, whatever unfavorable constructions our enemies may put upon such procedure. The exigency of out public affairs leaves us no alternative from a state of anarchy or slavery.

Though far from the poetic words penned by Thomas Jefferson, twenty months later, none the less, a declaration of independence.

The Provincial Congress

Salem, Massachusetts – October 5, 1774

Ninety men, who had been elected by their towns, met in the Salem courthouse — as the General Court.  They were waiting for General Gage to appear, though most knew, already, that he would not show up.  He had already dissolved his court.  The ninety, however, wished to demonstrate their willingness to work with the Crown, though, as far as they were concerned, they were there under the Charter.  Most had felt that this act was necessary to demonstrate their willingness to act under the Charter, as well as, to justify resorting to an alternate, illegal, government — understanding that civil government was both desirable, and, necessary for the function of their communities.

The next day, all of the delegates resolved themselves into a Provincial Congress.  No governor had sworn them in; no official body had sanctioned their authority.  Their authority had, for the first time, been sanctioned solely by the people who had sent them there.

Their first business was to elect officers.  John Hancock and Benjamin Lincoln were elected president and clerk, respectively.  They then adjourned to the second Tuesday in October — the date previously designated for that purpose.

Concord, Massachusetts – October 11 – 29, 1774

On 10:00 O’clock, Tuesday morning, October 11, the ninety delegates from the General court, along with 200 other delegates, selected by the various towns and counties, met at the Concord courthouse and reconvened the Provincial Congress.  Of the 260 towns then in Massachusetts, 209 had sent delegates.  This was a far greater participation than the General Court, even under the Charter, had ever inspired in Massachusetts.  The following week, the Congress moved to Cambridge, where the infrastructure was more able to accommodate this extremely large gathering.

The first orders of business included: procuring arms; raising money to pay for them; establishing civil government; and, establishing a military structure to support their resistance to the imposition of Parliament on their rights under the Charter.

On October 20, a committee “to consider what is necessary to be now done for the defence and safety of the province” was appointed, and met behind closed doors — to preserve military secrecy.

On October 24, another committee was appointed to determine “the most proper time for this province to provide a stock of powder, ordinance, and ordinance stores” for the Province.  Later, that day, their report was returned to the Congress — “Now was the proper time”.

On October 26, the military committee came back with their report.  The Congress, then, approved the following:

16 field pieces, 3 pounders, with carriages, irons,
&c.; wheels for ditto, irons, sponges, ladles,
&c.,     @ £ 30     £480 0 0

4 ditto, 6 pounders, with ditto,     @ £ 38     £152 0 0

Carriages, irons, &c., for 12 battering cannon,  @ £ 30     £360 0 0

4 mortars, and appurtenances, viz: 2 8-inch and 2 13-inch,     @ £ 20     £80 0 0

20 tons grape and round shot, from 3 to 24 lb.,     @ £15        £300 0 0

10 tons bomb‑shells,      @ £ 20     £200 0 0

5 tons lead balls,     @ £ 33     £ 165 0 0

1,000 barrels of powder,     @ £8     £8,000 0 0

5,000 arms and bayonets,     @ £2     £10,000 0 0

And 75,000 flints          £ 100 0 0

Contingent charges          £ 1,000 0 0

In the whole                          £20,837 0 0

The Congress had already suggested to the towns that any money due the government should be held.  On October 28, they appointed Henry Gardiner as Receiver-General, and directed the towns to remit any collected money to him.  It also encouraged all of the inhabitants to pay any taxes due, and all future taxes to be paid to Gardiner.

The Provincial Congress established a Committee of Safety with the power to “alarm, muster, and cause to be assembled” the militia, when necessary.  This Committee was also empowered to appoint new militia commandeers, while the men of each militia company were encouraged to elect new officers, if they had not already done so.

Finally, they directed all of the militia to “hold themselves in readiness, on the shortest notice from the said committee of safety, to march to the place of rendezvous”.

The Congress adjourned on October 29.  The Committee of Safety was instructed to sit in Cambridge, where it could keep an eye on the movement of the British troops.

Boston, Massachusetts – November 14, 1774

On October 3, General Gage wrote, “I don’t find that the Spirit abates any where, for it is kept up with great Industry…  I don’t suppose People were ever more possessed with Zeal and Enthusiasm.”

General Gage had been trying to have quarters built for his troops, and found that, “This refusal of all Assistance has thrown us into Difficulties, but I hope to get through them, and to be able to put the Troops under Cover, tho’ not so comfortably as I cou’d wish”.  Neither Boston carpenters, nor those from New York, would hire out to the British.  Boston, out of self-preservation, those from New York out of fear, if they should oppose the desires of the patriots who had taken over nearly the entire Province.

On October 17, General Gage was concerned over some rumors that had reached Boston:

There are various Reports spread abroad of the Motions made at the Provincial Congress, whilst at Concord, some, it’s said, moved to attack the Troops in Boston immediately, other to value the Estates in the Town, in order to pay the Proprietors the Loss they might sustain, and to set the Town on Fire.

By October 30, General Gage was extremely alarmed.  In his State of the Province report, he said:

Nobody here or at home could have conceived, that the Acts made for the Massachusett’s Bay, could have created such a Ferment throughout the Continent, and united the whole in one common Cause, or that the Country People could have been raised to such a pitch of Phrenzy…  If Force is to be used at length, it must be a considerable one, and Foreign Troops must be hired, for to begin with Small Numbers will encourage Resistance and not terrify; and will in the End cost more Blood and Treasure.  An Army of Such a Service should be large enough to make considerable Detachments to disarm and take in the Counties…

Many of their Leaders I apprehend mean to bully and terrify, and others to push Matters to extremity, puffed up by Hopes of Assistance from the whole Continent, and Certainty of the immediate Aid of the four New-England Provinces, which they flatter themselves are alone sufficient to withstand all the Force of Great Britain.  The People are told that the present Acts only lead to others which are to divide their Lands into Lordships, and tax them at so much Pr Acre…

I am concerned that Affairs are gone to so great a Length that Great Britain cannot yield without giving up all her Authority over this Country, unless some Submission is Shewn on the part of the Colonies which I have tried at here tho’ hetherto without Effect.  And Affaires are at such a Pitch thro’ a general union of the whole.  That I am obliged to use more caution than could otherwise be necessary, least all the Continent should unite in hostile Proceedings against us.

On November 2, he wrote, “I shall not be surprized, as the Provincial Congress seems to proceed higher and higher in their Determinations, if Persons should be Authorized by them to grant Commissions and Assume every Power of a legal Government, for their Edicts are implicitly obeyed throughout the Country.”

On November 14, General Gage was so frustrated at the inability to raise revenues (the counties and towns had deferred payment, and transferred the money to the Provincial Congress).  That he published this broadside, and had it published in the Boston newspapers:

PROVINCE of MASSACHUSETTS BAY

By the GOVERNOR

A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS a Number of Persons unlawfully assembled at Cambridge, in the month of October last, calling themselves a Provincial Congress, did in the most open and daring Terms, assume to themselves the Powers and Authority of Government, independent of, and repugnant to his Majesty’s Government legally and constitutionally established within this Province, and tending utterly to subvert the same; and did amongst other unlawful Proceedings, take upon themselves to Resolve and direct, a new and unconstitutional Regulation of the Militia, in high Derogation of his Majesty’s royal Prerogative; and also to elect and appoint Henry Gardner Esq. of Stow, to be Receiver General, in the room of HARRISON GRAY Esq., then and still legally holding and executing that office; and also to order and direct the Monies granted to his Majesty to be paid into the Hands of the said Henry Gardner, and not to the said Harrison Gray Esqr., and further, earnestly to recommend to the Inhabitants of the province to oblige and compel the several Constables and collectors to comply with and execute the said Directions of the Law: all which Proceedings have a most dangerous Tendency to ensnare his Majesty’s Subjects, the inhabitants of this Province, and draw them into Perjuries, Riots, Sedition, Treason, and Rebellion.

For the Prevention of which Evils, and the calamitous Consequences thereof;

I have thought it my Duty to issue this Proclamation, hereby earnestly exhorting, and, in His Majesty’s Name strictly prohibiting all his liege Subjects within this Province, from complying, in any Degree, with the said Requisitions, Recommendations, Directions or resolves of the aforesaid unlawful assembly, as they regard his Majesty’s highest Displeasure, and wou’d avoid the Pains and Penalties of the Law. And I do hereby charge and command all justices of the Peace, Sheriffs, Constables, Collectors and other officers, in their several Departments, to be vigilant and faithful in the Execution and Discharge of their Duty in their respective offices, agreeable to the well known established Laws of the Land; and, to the utmost of their Power, by all lawful Ways and Means, to discountenance, discourage and prevent a Compliance with such dangerous Resolves of the above-mentioned, or any other unlawful Assembly whatever.

GIVEN at Boston this 10th Day of November in the Fifteenth year of the Reign of his Majesty, George the Third, by the Grace of God of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King Defender of the Faith, &c. Annoque Domini 1774.

THOs. GAGE By His Excellency’s Command,
Tho. FLUCKER, Secretary
GOD Save The KING

Brooklyne, Massachusetts – December 13, 1774

General Gage, becoming desperate to find a solution, made is next move on December 13.  John Andrews described the activity:

This morning the Welch fusiliers, together with a detachment from another regiment, form’d a body of 400 men, and equip’d with knapsacks &ca., march out of town as far as the punch bowl in Brooklyne, when they return’d again.  What this manoeuvre can be for, I cant imagine, other than to give the men an airing, or with a view to make frequent feints of the kind in order to familiarize the people to it, whereby in [the] future they may make an interruption into the country without creating any suspicion of their design, or possibly to make the Soldiers acquainted with the different roads near town.

On December 21, Andrews again reports, “two or three regiments continue to go out of town every day, sometimes to Cambridge, and other times to Dedham.”

Though General Gage’s intentions are unknown, if his desire was to pose a threat to the colonists, it had the reverse effect.  Resentment was building because of these unwarranted trespasses into the countryside.

Fort William and Mary, New Hampshire – December 14 – 15, 1774

On December 13, the Boston Committee of Safety directed Paul Revere to ride to Portsmouth, New Hampshire to advise the local patriots that the British were sending ships to Fort William and Mary to take arms, ammunition, and powder that was stored there.  At that time, there were only six soldiers at the fort.

On December 14, four hundred patriots overwhelmed the guard and made off with one hundred barrels of gunpowder.  The next day, an even larger crowd seized all of the muskets and sixteen cannon.  By the time the British ships arrived, all of the guns and powder had been taken and secreted in the countryside.

Boston, Massachusetts – February 24, 1775

On February 24, General Gage received an intelligence report.  That report provides insight into what Gage had to contend with, with regard to the activity in opposition to the royal government.

Committee of safety appointed by the Congress consisting of Hancock, Warren, Church, Heath and Gearey, these are to observe the motions of the Army, and if they attempt to penetrate into the Country, imedietly to communicate the intelligence to Colo. Ward, Colo. Bigelow, and Colo. Henshaw, who live in or near the Towns of Worcester, and Leicester.  Colo. Warren of Plymough and Colo. Lee of Marblehead, they are to send express’s round the Country to collect the Minute Men who are to oppose the troops.  These Minute Men amount to about 15,000 and are the picked Men of the whole body of Militia, and all properly armed.

There are in the Country thirty-eight Field pieces and Nineteen Companies of Artillery most of which are at Worcester, a few at Concord, and a few at Watertown.

There whole Magazine of Powder consisting of between Ninety and an Hundred Barrells is at Concord.

There are eight Field pieces in an old Store or Barn, near the landing place at Salem, they are to be removed in a few days, the Seizure of them would greatly disconcert their schemes.

Colo. Lee, Colo. Brine, Mr. Devons, Mr. Chever, Mr. Watson, and Moses Gill, are appointed a Committee of supply, who are to purchase all military stores, to be deposited at Concord and Worcester.

This intelligence made General Gage realize that he had better begin acting, before the situation got completely out of hand.  He had to begin asserting himself.

Salem, Massachusetts – February 26, 1775

Determined to forestall an appearance of submission to the activities of the patriots, General Gage opted to take a positive action.  He sent troops, by ship, to Marblehead, where they disembarked and began an overland march to Salem.  Their purpose was to seize the stores that the February 24 report indicated to be in Salem.

William Gavett, a Salem resident, provides a description of what transpired:

Colonel David Mason had received tidings of the approach of the British troops and ran into the North Church … during service in the afternoon, and cried out, at the top of his voice, “The British reg’lars are coming after the guns and are now near Malloon’s Mills.”  One David Boyce, a Quaker who lived near the church, was instantly out with his team to assist in carrying the guns out of the reach of the troops….

The northern leaf of the draw was hoisted when the troops approached the bridge, which prevented them from going any further.  Their commander, Col. Leslie…. then remarked to Capt. Felt, or in his hearing, that he should be obliged to fire upon the people on the northern side of the bridge if they did not lower the leaf.  Captain Felt told him if the troops did fire they would all be dead men, or words to that effect.  It was understood afterwards that if the troops fired upon the people, Felt intended to grapple with Col. Leslie and jump into the river, for, he said, “I would willingly be drowned myself to be the death of one Englishman …

The people soon began scuttling two gondolas which lay on the western side of the bridge, and the troops also got into them to prevent it.  One Joseph Whicher, the foreman in Col. Sprague’s distillery, was at work scuttling the colonel’s gondola, and the soldiers ordered him to desist, and threatened to stab him with their bayonets if he did not — whereupon he opened his breast and dared them to strike.  They pricked his breast so as to draw blood….

It was a very cold day, and the soldiers were without overcoats, and shivered excessively and shewed signs of being cold.  Many of the inhabitants climbed upon the leaf of the draw and blackguarded the troops.  Among them was a man who cried out as loud as possible, “Soldiers, red-jackets, lobster-coats, cowards, damnation to your government!” …

Colonel Leslie … said, “I will get over this bridge before I return to Boston, if I stay here till next autumn….  By God! I will not be defeated”; to which Captain Felt replied, “You must acknowledge you have already been baffled.”

in the course of the debate between Colonel Leslie and the inhabitants, the colonel remarked that he was upon the King’s Highway and would not be prevented passing over the bridge.

Old Mr. James Barr, an Englishman and a man of much nerve, then replied to him: “It is not the King’s Highway; it is a road built by the owners of the lots on the other side, and no king, country or town has anything to do with it.” …

Then the colonel asked Captain Felt if he had any authority to order the leaf of the draw to be lowered, and Captain Felt replied there was no authority in the case, but there might be some influence.  Colonel Leslie then promised, if they would allow him to pass over the bridge, he would march but fifty rods and return immediately, without troubling or disturbing anything.  Captain Felt was at first unwilling to allow the troops to pass over on any terms, but at length consented, and requested to have the leaf lowered down.  The troops then passed over and marched the distance agreed upon without violating their pledge, then wheeled and marched back again, and continued their march through North Street, in the direction of Marblehead.

A nurse named Sarah Tarrant, in one of the houses near the termination of their route, in Northfields, placed herself at the open window and called out to them: “Go home and tell your master he has sent you on a fool’s errand and broken the peace of our Sabbath.  What,” said she, “do you think we were born in the woods, to be frightened by owls?”  One of the soldiers pointed his musket at her, and she exclaimed, “Fire if you have the courage, but I doubt it.

Failing in their effort to seize the stores in Salem, the troops returned to Boston.

Boston, Massachusetts – April 12, 1775

General Gage had continued seeking intelligence on the activity of the patriots.  John Howe, a 22-year-old spy, provides us:

On April 5, 1775, General Gage called on me to go as a spy to Worcester to examine the roads, bridges and fording places, and to see which was the best route to Worcester to take an army to destroy the military stores deposited there.  Accordingly Col. Smith and myself dressed ourselves as countrymen with gray coats, leather breeches, and blue mixed stockings, with silk flagg handkerchiefs round our necks, with a small bundle tied up in a homespun checked handkerchief in one hand, and a walking stick in the other.  Thus equiped we set out like countrymen to find work,

At one point, he noticed what he described as “the largest tree I ever saw.  He asked a local what kind of tree it was.  The response:

He said buttonwood, and further said that the people were going to cut it down to stop the regulars from crossing with their cannon.  I asked him how they would know when the regulars were coming in time enough to cut the tree down.  He said they had men all the time at Cambridge and Charlestown looking out.  This tree would completely blockade the road should they do it.

He continues:

The general said, “John, we have examined your journal; you are well deserving the name of a good soldier and a lucky and expert spy.  How large an army will it take to go to Worcester and destroy the stores and return safe?”  By answering that question I must stand or fall, but I was determined to give my opinion in full, turn as it would.  I said, if they should march 10,000 regulars and a train of artillery to Worcester, which is forty-eight miles from this place, the roads very crooked, stony and hilly, the in­habitants generally determined to be free or die, that not one of them would get back alive…  The general asked me what I thought of destroying the stores at Concord, only eighteen miles.  I stated that I thought 500 mounted men might go to Concord in the night and destroy the stores and return safe; but to go with 1000 foot to destroy the stores the country would be alarmed; that the greater part of them would get killed or taken.

If Howe’s recollection of his advice to General Gage is accurate, we probably have Gage to thank for not heeding it.  Had he gone with the “500 mounted men”, only God knows how history would have been recorded.

Boston, Massachusetts – April 14, 1775

General Gage received correspondence from Lord Dartmouth, which informed him that 700 marines, three infantry regiments, one regiment of light dragoons, and, financial support for the existing force in Boston, were on the way.  He went on, “It is hoped… that this large Reinforcement to your Army will enable you to take a more active & determined part….  The King’s Dignity, & the Honor and Safety of the Empire, require, that…  Force should be repelled by Force.”

This letter, in no uncertain terms, required that General Gage begin acting in an aggressive capacity to quash the growing movement.  With the additional forces, he should be able to overcome the previous limitations — for want of troops.

With this encouragement, and veiled threat, General Gage would have to act.  He opted to send one thousand men, on foot, to destroy, or capture, the stores at Concord.  Thus, the course of history was set.

Concord, Massachusetts – April 19, 1775

Just eight months after the farmers in Worcester began thwarting the imposition of the Massachusetts Government Act, events, that evolved far more from the activities of the countrymen, outside of Boston, than from the words of those within that besieged city, culminated in the end of the Revolution and the beginning of the War of Independence.

The End of the Revolution

When the infamous “Stamp Act” was imposed upon the colonists, in 1775, there began an era of oppression and retaliation. The oppression came in various forms, primarily, through Acts of the Parliament.

The retaliation came in a constantly escalating endeavor by the colonists to impede the effect of the Acts of Parliament.

Initially, the retaliation took the form of “non-consumption”. Items that were taxed, to repay the debt incurred by the French-Indian War, were not purchased. Occasionally, more aggressive retaliation came in the form of tarring and feathering tax collectors. This activity did result in the death of an occasional tax collector, and, often tax collectors homes and offices would be torn down., though this ‘violence’ was nothing, compared to what was to come.

It wasn’t until the Boston Tea Party that overt acts of violence, though the violence was strictly limited to only the tea and the chests that it was stored in, were committed.

Our textbook history pretty much limits explanations of overt acts to the Tea Party, until April 19, 1775.

As you have seen, however, that threats of violence, or even death, and frequent destruction of private property, was rampant, in those months leading up to the end of the Revolution.

History, after all, does have very much to teach us.

[Note: Much of the information in the foregoing article is contained in “The First American Revolution”, by Ray Raphael (ISBN 1-56584-730-X). Documentation for quoted portions may be found in that book.]

APPENDIX

Massachusetts Government Act

[pertinent parts]

May 20, 1774

AN ACT for the better regulating the government of the province of the Massachusetts Bay, in New England.

WHEREAS the method of electing such counsellors or assistants, to be vested with the several powers, authorities, and privileges, therein mentioned, … in which the appointment of the respective governors had been vested in the general courts or assemblies of the said colonies, hash, by repeated experience, been found to be extremely ill adapted to the plan of government established in the province of the Massachusetts Bay … , and hath … for or some time past, been such as had the most manifest tendency to obstruct, and, in great measure, defeat, the execution of the laws; to weaken the attachment of his Majesty’s well disposed subjects in the said province to his Majesty’s government, and to encourage the ill disposed among them to proceed even to acts of direct resistance to, and defiance of, his Majesty’s authority: And it hath accordingly happened, that an open resistance to the execution of the laws hath actually taken place in the town of Boston, and the neighbourhood thereof, within the said Province: And whereas it is, under these circumstances, become absolutely necessary, … that the said method of annually electing the counsellors or assistants of the said Province should no longer be suffered to continue, but that the appointment of the said counsellors or assistants should henceforth be put upon the like footing as is established in such other of his Majesty’s colonies or plantations in America, the governors whereof are appointed by his Majesty’s commission, under the great seal of Great Britain: Be it therefore enacted …, that from and after August 1, 1774, so much of the charter … [of 1691] … which relates to the time and manner of electing the assistants or counsellors for the said province, be revoked, … and that the offices of all counsellors and assistants, elected and appointed in pursuance thereof, shall from thenceforth cease and determine: And that, from and after the said August 1, 17 74, the council, or court of assistants of the said province for the time being, shall be composed of such of the inhabitants or proprietors of lands within the same as shall be thereunto nominated and appointed by his Majesty . . , provided, that the number of the said assistants or counsellors shall not, at any one time, exceed thirty six, nor be less than twelve.

II

And it is hereby further enacted, That the said assistants or counsellors, so to be appointed as aforesaid, shall hold their offices respectively, for and during the pleasure of his Majesty….

III

And be it further enacted …, That from and after July 1, 1774, it shall and may be lawful for his Majesty’s governor for the time being of the said province, or, in his absence, for the lieutenant governor, to nominate and appoint, under the seal of the province, from time to time, and also to remove, without the consent of the council, all judges of the inferior courts of common pleas, commissioners of Oyer and Terminer, the attorney general, provosts, marshals, justices of the peace, and other officers to the council or courts of justice belong….

VI

And be it further enacted …, That, upon every vacancy of the offices of chief justice and judges of the superior court of the said province, from and after July 1, 1774, the governor for the time being, or, in his absence, the lieutenant governor, without the consent of the council, shall have full power and authority to nominate and appoint the persons to suceed to the said offices, who shall hold their commissions during the pleasure of his Majesty …;

VII

And whereas, by several acts of the general court, … the freeholders and inhabitants of the several townships, districts, and precincts, qualified, as is therein expressed, are authorized to assemble together, annually, or occasionally, upon notice given, in such manner as the said acts direct, for the choice of selectmen, constables, and other officers, and for or the making and agreeing upon such necessary rules, orders, and byelaws, for the directing, managing, and ordering, the prudential affairs of such townships, districts, and precincts, and for other purposes: and whereas a great abuse has been made of the power of calling such meetings, and the inhabitants have, contrary to the design of their institution, been misled to treat upon matters of the most general concern, and to pass many dangerous and unwarrantable resolves: for remedy whereof, be it enacted, that from and after August 1, 1774, no meeting shall be called by the select men, or at the request of any number of freeholders of any township, district, or precinct, without the leave of the governor, or, in his absence, of the lieutenant governor, in writing, expressing the special business of the said meeting, except the annual meeting in the months of March or May, for the choice of select men, constables, and other officers, or except for the choice of persons to fill up the offices aforesaid, on the death or removal of any of the persons first elected to such offices, and also, except any meeting for the election of a representative or representatives in the general court; and that no other matter shall be treated of at such meetings…

END

* * * * * * * * * * * * *

On on-line version can be found at: Hidden History #3 – The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence

PDF file of this article: The End of the Revolution and the Beginning of Independence (PDF)

 The
Outpost of Freedom
presents

MARTIAL LAW?

By
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom

For years we have heard that the United States

was in bankruptcy,

that we are under Martial Law.

For years we could only suppose this to be true.

Dr. Gene Schroder,

American Agricultural Movement,

has done extensive research into the matter.

The results of his research prove that

these claims are, absolutely, true.

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been

operating under a declared

National Emergency

as a result of that bankruptcy.

The effect is an erosion of our Constitutional protections.

All information contained herein
is Copyright by Common Law.

Reproduction rights are granted,
so long as proper credit is given.

 

MARTIAL LAW

by
Gary Hunt
May 24, 1994

It seems that we have all heard that “martial law” had been declared and that we have been living under it for most, if not all, of our lives. I, like many others, looked at the circumstances and assumed that this could be true. I have not, however, been able to find the documentation of this matter and, therefore, have been reluctant to claim such.

Thanks to a very close fiend from Dallas, Texas, that I have never met (he was my “alarm clock” during the siege in Waco — by virtue of calling me every morning, to wake me up), I now have most of the paperwork that supports this contention. This paperwork comes from a Citizens for Legal Reform meeting, January 18, 1994, “Abolition of the United States Constitution Under the War Powers Act”, by Dr. Gene Schroder.

It is important, since we now know this to be true, to understand exactly how it was that we came under “Martial Law.” It is one thing to assume that it is true, another to know that is true and quite another to KNOW why it is true. I will give quotes and refer to the documents from which they are taken.

WORLD WAR I

World War I, the War to end all wars, allowed the Congress to pass the “Trading with the enemy Act”. [SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS, Session I, Chapter 106, “An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes”.] The Act was passed on October 6, 1917. Portions of said Act are presented below:

Section 2(c) contains the definition of “enemy”, to include, ‘”Such other individuals or body or class of individuals as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, . . . may, by Proclamation, include within the tern “enemy” (emphasis mine)

Section 5(a) gives the President the authority to suspend the Act with regard to any ally of the enemy, as he shall determine to be appropriate. An interesting assumption that the President may allow continuation of trade with an enemy, indirectly, based upon his determination!

Section 5(b), however, allows the President to “. . . regulate, or prohibit . . . any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency . . . by any person within the United States; and he may require any such person engaged in any s such transaction to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, . . .”

 Interesting that he has also made testimony compulsory. This appears to be a direct violation of that portion of Article V, Bill of Rights, which states, “nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”, and is the beginning of the decimation of our Rights protected thereunder.

Section 6 provides for “officials to he known as ‘alien pi property custodians”, who will be empowered to receive all money or property owned by, or owed to, any enemy or ally of enemy.” Has this become the IRS?

Interesting that the authority granted the President allowed such a broad degree of discretion, and that the “gold and silver” mandated by the Constitution would be an object of this Act. My recollection was that Habeas Corpus may be suspended only, “when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the Public Safety, may require it.”

The Writ of Habeas Corpus provision provides that no one may be arrested by the government, unless the arrest is made pursuant to the Constitution. Article 5 of the Bill of Rights, says, “No person .shall he held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces; or in the Militia when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person he subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall he compelled in any criminal erase to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Perhaps the intended meaning of this provision has been lost. Does it mean, among other things, that the government may not arrest anyone unless the determination that an arrest is to be made is made by a group of peers? That government, of and by itself, has not the authority to arrest anyone? Except, of course, in those times where a national emergency is declared.

So, perhaps the meanings given to the words by the Founding Fathers has been lost. Law enforcement officers make arrests, without indictments by the Grand Jury, and property is “seized”, under property forfeiture laws, daily. Perhaps we have found why these sacred protections have slowly eroded into what we have been led to believe is good “crime control.” Perhaps we have been LIED to by the very people chosen to represent us.

So much for this, however, because the War ended and all returned to normal — except the fact that Congress had allowed this Act, which was a step in denial of Constitutional protection, to continue to exist.

Did these Acts of Congress continue to affect our daily lives? Or, were they discontinued at the end of hostilities? Go to your local law library and read 12 USC §95(b).

DEPRESSION

History makes quite clear the existence of the Great Depression. Exactly when it began is subject to debate. However, the fact that Franklin D. Roosevelt became President in March 4, 1933 is not.

On Sunday, March 5, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt called for Congress to “convene in extra session” on March 9, 1933 [Proclamation 2038]. On the very next day, he declared, by proclamation, a “bank holiday” which ran from Monday, March 6 through Thursday, March 9, inclusive. In the proclamation, he makes some rather interesting claims. He states that “there have been heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency . . . for the purpose of hoarding.” and this “has resulted in severe a drains on the Nation’s stocks of gold : and” 

“WHEREAS these conditions have created a national emergency; and”

He then goes on to refer to “Section 5(b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L, 411) as amended ‘That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of license or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency * * *’”

Further, “NOW, THEREFORE, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America in view (f the national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by said Act . . . “ (emphasis mine), and declares the “holiday”.

The “national emergency” that he spoke of was the extension of lending authority granted to the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) just twenty years before. The FRB was unable to provide, in gold, the deposits on hand. The system of fractional banking had allowed them to extend credit well beyond the available “value” held in trust by the banks. This is the definition of bankrupt, “The state or condition of one who is unable to pay his debts as they are, or become, due.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition)

Then curiously, on March 9, Roosevelt saw fit to continue the “bank holiday” [Proclamation No. 2040] until further “proclamation” by the President. Perhaps never to be rescinded by said proclamation.

Then, on March 9, 1933, Congress passed “AN ACT To provide relief in the existing national emergency in banking, and for other purposes”. [73^rd Congress, Public Law No. 1, March 9, 1933. (Title I, § 1, 48 Stat. I] (emphasis mine) “That the Congress declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application”. Congress, not to be outdone by the President, passed a joint resolutions which confirmed the existence of the emergency (March 9 Proclamation) and argued that the resolution was necessary; otherwise the payment in gold, of real debts, would “obstruct the power of Congress to regulate the value of the money of the United States.” That “every provision contained or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the obligee a right to require payment in gold [the Constitution] or a particular kind of coin or currency [gold certificates], or an amount in money of the United States measured thereby; is declared to be against public policy; . . . Every obligation, heretofore or hereafter incurred, whether any such provision is contained therein  or made with respect thereto, shall be discharged upon payment, dollar for dollar: in any coin or currency [Federal Reserve Notes] which at the time of payment is legal tender. . .” (emphasis mine)

Within the Act they rewrote Section 5(b) of the “Trading with the enemy Act” of 1917. The first sentence is provided, in it’s entirety, to give you an idea of the change of mood of the government:

1933, Section 5(b)

During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, That the President may , through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States); and transfers of evidence of indebtedness or of ownership of property between the United States and any foreign country, whether enemy, ally of enemy or otherwise, or between residents of one or more foreign countries, by any person within the United States or any place  subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and he the President may require any such person engaged in any such transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish, under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of .such person, either before or after such transaction is completed…”

Let me repeat this as, it has read since 1933:

“During time of war or any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through  any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and the President may require  any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers in connection therewith in the custody or control of .such person, either before or after such transaction is completed “

Interestingly, it appears that all reference to “enemy” is deleted, and the law now acts on “any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof” Have WE become the ENEMY?

Note, also, that if the President were to issue a “license”, the trading would be condoned. Have we been given a “license” to conduct our everyday activities of commerce? Many businesses, along with driving, hunting, fishing, etc., have become “licensed” activities. I leave to you to find the correlation.

The question might arise as to whether Roosevelt thought this out by himself The answer is a resounding NO! In a letter and recommended Resolution that Herbert Hoover received from Eugene Meyers, Governor of the Federal Reserve Board, dated March 3, 1933, we find the exact wording incorporated in the Act.’ This “advice” was finally followed by Roosevelt just a few days later, just after he was sworn in to office.

It is even more interesting to understand just what happened to all of the gold, at this point. Remember, this was predicated on the fact that the Federal Reserve Banks were unable to pay out the gold for which “certificates” had been issued. But, what happened to the gold? In “The Hoover Policies”,’ in discussing the affects of the New Deal, “This first  contact of the ‘money changers’ with the few Deal twined those who removed then money from the country a profit of up to 60 per cent when the dollar was debased [gold was $20 per ounce before, and $32 per ounce after the banking act].” It appears, then, that those “in the know” were able to “remit” their “gold certificates” for gold prior to these Acts. The result was the reduction of assets in the banks to repair those with money on account and the transfer of the real “money”, gold, to those who fled the country to profit from the misfortune of most of working America, throwing these working people into a dependency on government that resulted, in 1934, in the establishment of the Social Security Act, the beginning of “The New Deal” and the beginning of the demise of the “Great Experiment.”

Let’s check the validity of what we have just said. From the Congressional Record [March 9, 1933, page 79, by Steagall], “Section 2 confers upon the President the powers bestowed under the act of October 6, 1917, regardless of whether or not the county is involved in war.” Later, in that same document [page 82] Mr. McGugin says, “Anyone knows that this Government cannot now collect enough taxes to meet their expenses . . . there is only one thing left for them, and that is to print money. “

In a report “Contracts payable in Gold” [Senate Report, Document No. 43, April 17, 1933, Page 9], we read the following statement, “The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State; individual so‑called ‘ownership’ is only by virtue of Government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”

 Well, this appears to be consistent with much that we have learned lately, we own NOTHING, not even our children. To bad they didn’t teach this lesson in “government school” history class, after all, this is an official government document, and is obviously what government believes to be true ‑ do you wonder whatever happened to what used to be called a “freeman”?

Let’s go a bit further on this thread — the United States Supreme Court said, in United States v. Russell [13 Wall, 623, 627] “Private property, the Constitution provides, shall trot be taken for public use without just compensation. . . . Extraordinary and unforeseen occasions arise, however; beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in time of war or immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be impressed into public  service, or may be seized or appropriated to the public use, or may even be destroyed without the consent of the owner. . . .”

It appears that it had taken the Money Merchants just twenty short years to evolve from their first introduction, along with the 16th and 17th amendments, of the Federal Reserve Bank, into the history of the United States, to a position whereby their “currency” (fiat money) was made the “coin of the realm.”

OTHER ACTS OF 1933

On May 17, 1933, Congress enacted additional legislation [Public Law No. 10, 1933 (HR 3835)] entitled, in part, “An Act To relieve the existing national economic emergency by increasing agricultural purchasing powers, to raise revenue for extraordinary expenses incurred by reason of .such emergency, . . . ” This Act allowed Government to purchase cotton to prop up prices; store the cotton and borrow against it. They would then sell it back to the producers, so long as the producer did not buy more than that which, when added to his production for a given year, did not exceed the production for the previous year, and allowed government to prohibit the producer from growing any other crop on the land previously used for cotton production. The “licensing” of the “right” to sell cotton to foreign powers was also “given” to Government.

Part 2 of this Act extended the above to any agricultural product the Government wanted to get involved in, thereby becoming “partners” with the farmers of America. Of course, a “Processing tax” was also included to cover the cost of the Government’s participation. The Act, however, was a very significant and substantial beginning to partnerships between Government and private sector ‑ that which has culminated in the controls now imposed upon nearly every aspect of business today.

Section 13 of this Act declares that, “This title shall cease to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic emergency, in relation to agriculture has been ended . . .”

Then we come to Section 43, “Whenever the President finds, upon investigation, that (I) the foreign commerce of the United States is adversely affected by reason of the depreciation in the value of the currency of any other government or governments in relation to the present standard value of gold, or (2) action under this section is necessary in older to regulate and maintain the parity of currency issues of the United States, or (3) an economic emergency requires expansion of credit, or (4) an expansion of credit is necessary to secure by international agreement a stabilization at proper levels of the currency of various governments, the President is authorized, in his discretion‑‑” then continues, under these criterion, to authorize the “creation” of money, out of virtually nowhere. This, in and of itself seems to defy logic and place an inordinate degree of authority within the office of President — and remove it from the legislative body of our representatives.

The conclusion of this Act, however, is the epitome of the desecration of the concept handed down by the Founding Fathers. Section 46 amends the existing Section 19 of the Federal Reserve Act by adding, “Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this  section [Section 19], the Federal Reserve Board, upon the affirmative vote of not less than five of its members and with the approval of the President, may declare a that an emergency exists by reason of credit expansion, and may by regulation during such emergency increase ease or decrease from time to time, in its discretion, the reserve balances required to be maintained against either demand or time deposits.” So, what has been accomplished is an “emergency” that is self sustaining and has a life of it’s own. The Act has created a means by which it can be extinguished., yet provides further provisions, and the creation of permanent agencies, which preclude that from ever occurring.

IS IT REAL?

The question will surely arise as to whether this “state of emergency” still exists. Well, we can go to 1973 and review the report of the Senate “Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency.[93^rd Congress, Senate Report No. 93-549, November 19, 1973]” From the Forward of that report:

“Since March 9, 1933, the United Starters has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now four presidentially proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 6, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.”

“These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. . . . . delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress . . . confer enough authority [to the President] to rule the country without reference to normal constitutional processes.”

REALITY

There you have it! The Senate of the United States, in committee, determined that, in fact, a national emergency exists today. As a result of the committee recommendations there: was a suspension of some of the executive orders relevant to national emergencies. However the significant ones still stand, in particular, those of 1933. Perhaps there is a reason that the Senate saw fit NOT to discontinue the national emergencies back in 1973. The perpetuation of this act is absolutely necessary to sustain the fraud that we have been under, for most of us, our entire lives. Anyone born before 1933 probably doesn’t even realize what has happened to our country, our government, our laws and our Constitution There is no doubt, however, that at this time we are under a national emergency, and that we now understand why the system of laws and protections that we read about cannot be practiced. A foreign (Federal Reserve Board and Bank) enemy has descended upon us, and has acquired control of our government. That control would not be released until we demand, by whatever means necessary, Congress to return of our Constitution and the Great Experiment that the Founding Fathers granted us.

“THE WAR IS ACTUALLY BEGUN”

After debate of solutions to the impending extension of control by the British, the Virginia Assembly was addressed by Patrick Henry on March 23, 1775 (nearly a month before Lexington-Concord). Solutions had been presented that might be consistent with Common Law Courts, Redress through legislative action, petition, boycott, demonstration, etc. The British had already imposed military control over certain areas, including Boston where “Indians” had dumped 342 chests of tea into the harbor.

As you read the following, think of the efforts being exerted by “patriots” all over the country today. Think, also, of incidents in California (Scott), Idaho (Weaver and Harris), Arkansas (Kahl) and Waco, Texas (Branch Davidians). Think of the legislation that has been passed, or pending, in Congress.  Compare the circumstances of our past and determine whether we have learned from them, or not.

 

“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if entertaining, as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery. And in proportion to the magnitude of the subject, ought to be the freedom of debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time through fear of giving offense I should consider myself guilty of treason toward my country and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of Heaven which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President it is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth – and listen to the song of the siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those war like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation – the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British Ministry have been long forging. And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which now coming on. We have petitioned – we have remonstrated – we have supplicated – we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak – unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the illlusive phantom of Hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we posses are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged, their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable – and let it come!! I repeat it, sir, let it come!!!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace – but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!“

 

Two classes of Citizen

Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
April 2, 2009
Let’s begin by understanding what some words mean:

Definition of United States:

Blacks Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition

United States.  The term has several meanings.  It may be merely the name of the sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations, it may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.  [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S.Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.eEd. 1252.]

So, we have:

a)     name of the sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations

b)    designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends

c)    collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution

So, when we look at Constitution, Art. II Sec. 1 Cl. 5, we will find:

“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;”

We need to understand that at this point in our history, every citizen was a citizen of one of the States of the Union (definition “c”).  The Constitution granted Congress the power to “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”, but made no other provision which would allow the United States to have its own citizens.  There would be no need for uniformity if the government were in charge of naturalization; rather, a uniform rule had to be established to apply to the Member States and their naturalization of citizens.  Basically, there was no ground (except the proposed ten miles square) which would constitute a place for citizens to exist, except in the respective states.

Further, Article III, Sec. 2 provides that the supreme Court has judicial power extending to all cases “… between a State and Citizens of another State;{9}–between Citizens of different States,–between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.”

And, Article IV, Sec 2 provides that “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States,” again, implying only that state Citizens exist.  Note that “of each State” is different, grammatically, than ‘in each state’.  The “of” denotes “that from which anything proceeds; indicating origin, source, [and] descent” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition].

It wasn’t until the dilemma of what to do with the guests, recently freed by the Slavery Amendment occurred that a solution needed to be found.  The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, under pressure to the Southern States, to create a class of citizen which would provide for those recently freed.

The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Interestingly, the Constitution first sets forth the concept of “subject to the jurisdiction of” in that Amendment.  Though I can’t find it, now, I read an assessment of that portion of the Fourteenth that seemed to support that those “orphans” of the war (the freed slaves) went from chattel to persons and, since the states did not allow them citizenship, they became ‘property” of the United States (subject to the jurisdiction of).  That aside, however, since I can’t find support for it, but offer it only as a consideration, along with the rest of what will be presented to demonstrate the point.

It also sets forth, for the first time, a concept of dual citizenship. “[C]itizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” clearly gives us two jurisdictions of which those affected by the Amendment are included.  The United States (probably “b”, though the cases I will cite are silent as to which it is) and the State (“c”).

So, for the first time in our history we have a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State – dual citizenship.

This begs the question as to whether this imposition of dual citizenship applies to people who would otherwise be citizens – absent the Amendment.  Obviously, citizens of the States existed prior to the ratification, and, since the Amendment does not remove anything that previously existed (repeal an existing law), it would appear that those who were not within the described realm (subject to the jurisdiction thereof) are not subject to the imposition of the dual citizenship status.

It is also interesting to note that subsequent to the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no reference to state citizens, even though the Fourteenth had reaffirmed the existence of that entity.  Is it possible that the subsequent amendments do not apply to those who are state citizens?

Going back to the first cases decided based on citizenship and the Fourteenth Amendment, we find:

Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 74 (1873).

“We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.”

U S v. CRUIKSHANK, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.

* * * * *

The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace, in the assault. So, too, if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the United States and the State: the United States, because it discredits the coin; and the State, because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.

 

Each within its own jurisdiction?  Interesting how the feds seem to have expanded their jurisdiction to wherever they want it to be.

This next case, in the United States supreme Court, deals with a person, over forty years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment, who was compelled to testify against himself in a New Jersey court.  He was convicted, and appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.  The conviction was upheld and the case then went to the United States supreme Court.

Though the court did not address the issue of state citizenship, directly, the jurisdiction of the New Jersey court where the trial was held had determined that, since the defendant was a state citizen, and not a federal citizen under the 14th Amendment, the extension of portions of the Constitutional requirements being imposed on the states by the 14th Amendment did not apply in this case.  This left the Defendant (petitioner) without the protection afforded by the 14th Amendment, and subject to the laws, as they existed in New Jersey, without regard to the 14th.  The supreme Court upheld the lower court.

I will include excerpts from the record which demonstrate the status of the defendant and the court’s indirect agreement to the absence of a nexus to the 14th Amendment. This is supported by both the Court’s opinion and the dissenting opinion – leaving no doubt that there are the two classes of citizen.

TWINING v. STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 211 U.S. 78 (1908)

Mr. Justice Moody, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

* * *

It was argued, inter alia, that the statute abridged the privileges and immunities of the plaintiffs in error as citizens of the United States, and the particular privilege which was alleged to be violated was that of pursuing freely their chosen trade, business, or calling. The majority of the court were not content with expressing the opinion that the act did not in fact deprive the plaintiffs in error of their right to exercise their trade (a proposition vigorously disputed by four dissenting justices), which would have disposed of the case, but preferred to rest the decision upon the broad ground that the right asserted in the case was not a privilege or immunity belonging to persons by virtue of their national citizenship, but, if existing at all, belonging to them only by virtue of their state citizenship. The 14th Amendment, it is observed by Mr. Justice Miller, delivering the opinion of the court, removed the doubt whether there could be a citizenship of the United States independent of citizenship of the state, by recognizing or creating and defining the former. ‘It is quite clear, then,’ he proceeds to say (p. 74), ‘that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.’ The description of the privileges and immunities of state citizenship, given by Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. C. C. 371, Fed. Cas. No. 3,230, is then quoted, approved, and said to include ‘those rights which are fundamental,’ to embrace ‘nearly every civil right for the establishment and protection of which organized government is instituted,’ and ‘to be the class of rights which the state governments were created to establish and secure.’ This part of the opinion then concludes with the holding that the rights relied upon in the case are those which belong to the citizens of states, as such, and are under the sole care and protection of the state governments. The conclusion is preceded by the important declaration that the civil rights theretofore appertaining to citizenship of the states and under the protection of the states were not given the security of national protection by this clause of the 14th Amendment.

* * *

… Due process requires that the court which assumes to determine the rights of parties shall have jurisdiction. [The New Jersey court, since the defendants were State Citizens]

* *

Much might be said in favor of the view that the privilege was guaranteed against state impairment as a privilege and immunity of national citizenship, but, as has been shown, the decisions of this court have foreclosed that view.

* *

We do not pass upon the conflict, because, for the reasons given, we think that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination in the courts of the states [as a State Citizen] is not secured by any part of the Federal Constitution. [Final reason for the decision was an absence of jurisdiction, since the defendants did not come under the 14th Amendment]

* *

Mr. Justice Harlan, dissenting:

* *

That Amendment, it was long ago decided, operated as a restriction on the exercise of powers by the United States or by Federal tribunals and agencies, but did not impose any restraint upon a state or upon a state tribunal or agency. The original Amendments of the Constitution had their origin, as all know, in the belief of many patriotic statesmen in the states then composing the Union, that, under the Constitution, as originally submitted to the people for adoption or rejection, the national government might disregard the fundamental principles of Anglo-American liberty, for the maintenance of which our fathers took up arms against the mother country. [Harlan argues that the protection against self incrimination is inherent in the due process clause, and applies regardless of the 14th Amendment]

The matter of state citizenship has not been brought before the supreme Court, for many years. There are probably two reasons for this:
1) That, as stated above, “as has been shown, the decisions of this court have foreclosed that view”
2) That most subsequent cases (all that I have found) deal, specifically, with Amendments which were ratified after the Fourteenth, and deal with privileges granted to US citizens, such as suffrage, civil rights, etc.

Based upon the above, can there be any doubt that there are, in fact and in law, two classes of citizen in the United States; And, that one can be of one class, the other class, or both classes?