Thought Crimes!

What have we come to?

Gary Hunt
March 30, 2010

 

The recent arrests of the members of the Hutaree Militia pose a perplexing dilemma for all of us.  Many have reacted; if they were going to do that, then they should go to prison.  Well, perhaps so.  After all, that comes under the heading of “law and order”, and though it does not come under the heading of “crime”, we have been conditioned to accept the conclusion that laws lead to order.  In addition, this, of course, leads to a well-ordered society.  In fact, it is the epitome of a well-ordered society.  Anybody who even thinks against the order established by the government, the Constitution notwithstanding, is guilty of a crime.

Now, many will contest that thinking is not applicable here.  They argue that they played out their scenario, in a practice run.  I don’t know if all of the facts are in, yet, though we will, most surely, hear the government side (only) of what has occurred, and we will see (have already seen) the rush to judgment.

Perhaps this points out the need to understand what real “law” and real “crime” really is.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:

Crime, n.

1.  An act which violates a law, divine or human; an act which violates a rule of moral duty; an offense against the laws of right, prescribed by God or man, or against any rule of duty plainly implied in those laws.  A crime may consist in omission or neglect, as well as commission and transgression.  The commander of a fortress who suffers the enemy to take possession by neglect, is as really criminal, as one who voluntarily opens the gates without resistance.

But in a more common and restricted sense, a crime denotes an offense, or violation of public law, of a deeper and more atrocious nature; a public wrong; or a violation of the commands of God, and the offense against any law made to preserve the public rights; as treason, murder, robbery, theft, arson, &c.  The minor wrongs committed against individuals or private rights, are denominated trespasses, and the minor wrongs against public rights are called misdemeanors.  Crimes and Misdemeanors are punishable by indictment, information or public prosecution; trespasses or private injuries, at the suit of the individuals injured.  But, in many cases an act is considered both as a public offense and a trespass, and is punishable both by the public and the individual injured.

2.  Any great wickedness, inequity; wrong

And, if we extend our search to include Tort, we find:

Tort, n.   In Law, any wrong or injury.  Torts are injuries done to the person pr property of another, as trespass, assault, battery, defamation and the like.

Now, within the Constitution, we find the following, in reference to crime in Article III, Section 2, clause 3:

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

As you read the above descriptions and portion of the Constitution, you might note that “committed”, “act”, “wrong”, “injury”, and, “offense”, are used to denote that which is construed as a crime.

Yes, that’s it!  An action must be taken, it must be committed.  Conjecture is not used, even once, the describing what a crime is.

Let’s suppose that your neighbor sneaks over at night and chops down your rosebush.  You know he did it, but you cannot prove it.  You talk this over with a friend and discuss what you could do to stop it.  You agree that force is the most productive form of reason and that strong steps should be taken.  Based upon this discussion, you expound, even further on what to do.  Based upon that meeting, you go to the gun store, get a rifle, and intend to use it on your neighbor, if he chops down another rose bush.  Of course, this thought goes through your mind, and, you have even taken actions, thought they are, to this point, legal actions, to prepare for an illegal one.  The, one evening, you catch him chopping done your rosebush.  You grab your rifle, with the intent of blowing his brains out.  You point the rifle at him, and then your conscience takes over and you order him to remain and your wife to call the police.  Well, you had the intent, you may have been voiced your intentions, you acted, you went to the scene, but, at the last minute, you did not “do the deed”.  Have you committed a crime?

Now, in the present state of our country, people yell “foul” and “treason” in their condemnation of the government’s actions regarding taxes, healthcare, war, executive orders, and all manner of evils, most of which are, without a doubt, violations of the Constitution as we perceive them.  Well, Treason, and, perhaps, violation of their oaths, when the consequences are as severe as the will be on our posterity, are, without a doubt, crimes that we, as jurors, might perceive as attaining the necessity of capital punishment.  Yet, we simply yell and shout.

However, when a group of people plans for an eventuality that we all see as well within the range of possibility, we are quick to side with that government, regardless of whether a real crime has been committed, or, for that matter, even planned — as the government suggests.  Was it to be carried out, or was it a plan that required some outside circumstance to initiate action?  In addition, even if it was planned, without outside influence, is it a crime unless committed?

If you wish to propose that playing the plan out, in practice, is an act that should be considered a crime, just why Hollywood would be exempt from such allegations.  They play out crimes against government, crimes against people, and even crime against non-existent entities.  In so doing, they play, the refine, they play out, each of which is a training tool for us in the real world.  Well, that is for entertainment, but, once we see it, does the idea, the concept presented, every really leave out heads?

Ironically, there used to be both laws and standards that prohibited much of what you see on television and in movies, today.  At the same time, we have seen federal authority flex its usurped power and make a crime of something that was beyond the conception of criminal, when our Constitution was written.

So, just how does this serve the government?

Let’s revisit the past.  In 1972, eight Vietnam Veterans were charged with conspiracy to disrupt the Republican Convention.  Another veteran, Bill Lemmer, was an undercover agent for the government.  He encouraged the group to expand their thought process and think of more violent means to achieve their objective.  In trial, the fact that the defendants were Vietnam Veterans and were accustomed to violence, was an element of the prosecution’s case, though the fact that Lemmer played such a significant role lead the jury to acquit.  The trial broke most of the defendants, and they had spent months in jail awaiting trial.  The government, which encouraged, acted out, conspired (both within the group and in the FBI offices), and even provided some illegal materials to the group, was not indicted, nor did the stand trial.

Years later, in the nineties, the Viper Militia in Phoenix, Arizona, and the West Virginia Militia were infiltrated by government agents.  The laws had been refined, and the fact that in both cases, informants were provocateurs and provided both material and planning, was inconsequential.  Convictions were obtained by the government, except, of course, the conviction of the informants, and, those who conspired with them.

For an understanding of how some informants are “recruited by the government, you might wish to read “Informants Amongst Us?”

The government, then, by changing the nature of what is considered a crime, and, by influencing those who might pose a greater threat to their usurpations than others to step over that fine line, even though encouraged by those who will not be charged, serves quite well in reducing those who might act, someday, against the government, and, at the same time, garner sympathy for those who have the same goals, though by different means, of restoring the Constitution, from going anywhere beyond the ballot box.

And, the most damning aspect of this whole practice (law?) is that it presumes that which cannot be proven — that a crime will be committed.  Unfortunately, though adhered to by the Founders, only when the damage has been done can a crime have been committed.

If we allow anything beyond that simple fact, we have submitted to domination by government, albeit through very divisive means, the subordination of our rights, principles and our Constitution, to the whim of those in power.

Informants Amongst Us?

 Gary Hunt
Outpost of freedom
May 8, 1995

The testimony in the Randy Weaver/Kevin Harris trial made clear that Randy had been induced into a crime with the intention of getting Randy to become an informant for the government.  While I was up in Idaho, I spoke with some people that suggested that nearly half of Richard Butler’s Aryan Nation Church were informants.  Others have suggested that when the old Posse Comitatus broke up, that most of their members had become informants.  Accusations have abounded these past few years as to who is a government agent or informant.  It was painfully clear that the government has means, other than agents, to accomplish infiltration, entrapment, and promulgation of misinformation throughout the Patriot community.  The question is, how can they achieve this goal?  I’ve been looking for an answer to that question for years, now.  Finally, thanks to the government’s efforts to accomplish that very goal with a true patriot, and friend, I’ve found the answer.

I have, in front of me, a Plea Agreement for that friend.  The deadline has passed, and he is scheduled before a federal Grand Jury later this month.  The Agreement is about as contemptuous a document as I have ever read.  I will get into the details, but, first, some background.  Although the friend was arrested, and held for a few days, until released on his own recognizance, there have yet to be any charges filed against him.  There were charges in the arrest affidavit, however they had not been filed with the court, and we can find no record that there EVER were any charges filed.  After a while, the United States Attorney submitted the Plea Agreement, and followed with a letter threatening to withdraw the Agreement if it was not accepted by a certain date.  That date has come and gone, and I am free to release the information, except the name of the patriot involved.  This particular Agreement refers to an IRS code violation, but, keep in mind, agreements could be submitted for nearly any charge.

The Agreement, first, sets out the charge that will be sought.  In this case, a violation of 26 USC 1212(a).  The maximum penalties (3 years in prison and $250,000 fine) are set out.  Then, a waiver of indictment gave up that Constitutionally protected right.  Then comes the USG’s agreement to not go after the Defendants wife or company, but only if the Agreement is accepted.  If no adverse information is received, the USG will not oppose the Defendant’s request for a “two level downward” adjustment from maximum sentencing guidelines.  Whether the Court accepts the Agreement, or not, the Defendant, once he signs the Agreement, is bound to its conditions.  If accepted, the Defendant agrees to cooperate and testify against “other persons“.  The USG will decide if the cooperation and/or testimony qualifies as “substantial assistance”.  If that “substantial assistance” is deemed worthy by the USG, prior to sentencing, the USG will, recommend the two level downward adjustment.  “[T]he determination as to whether ‘substantial assistance’ has been provided rests solely with the government, and the defendant agrees that defendant cannot and will not challenge that decision whether by appeal, collateral attack or otherwise.”

As the Agreement continues, speedy trial is waived, as are any other rights allegedly protected by the government/Constitution.  The bottom line — anybody who accepts such a plea agreement has become an informant, perhaps for the rest of his life.  Leaving the determination of “substantial assistance” on the USG leaves a means for the government to induce unethical, immoral, and illegal behavior of the defendant.  In order to satisfy the requirements, it would be easy for the government to suggest that more information (falsified, or not) needed to be provided to satisfy the provision.  Perhaps disseminating information that was meant to discredit someone, mislead people or just generally create confusion and disorder would satisfy the government’s requirement for “substantial assistance”.  It might even be possible for someone to entrap his friends, once the leverage was created by the Agreement.

Why would anyone agree to such an Agreement?  Let’s think about it.  First, to protect your spouse and family, there is a certain amount of pressure to agree.  If you own a business, or any property (asset forfeiture), fear of its loss may be added to the influence.  Finally, any bar attorney would probably seek a minimum retainer of $25,000 to defend a case such as this.

Just try to imagine yourself in such a situation.  Idealistically, we can all say, “No, I wouldn’t sign it.”  Nevertheless, realistically, the stakes are very, very high, and it probably would not be difficult to succumb.  How many people that we know may have succumbed, already?

When you think of the power the government exerts over an individual with an Agreement of this nature, visions come to mind of “involuntary servitude”.  As harmless, as first glance (and your attorney’s encouragement) might make it appear to be, it is a concept that is so evil on its face that it deserves to be equated with Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung — not with America.

Is there anything that we can do to help someone caught in this evil web?  Only if they are willing to come clean, and seek help from their fellow patriots.  If we are to shake off this “secret police” tactic, we must be willing to stand by any who come out and admit to falling into a Plea Agreement trap.  Whatever assistance (substantial???) they may need to avoid prosecution is warranted.  When we consider the severity of events currently engulfing us, it might be worth considering ANY support necessary to remove the chains from those who have submitted.  There are two reasons for this necessity.  First, we need every good man that is available, and cannot hold such acts against him, if he is willing to come clean.  Second, and more important by far, is the fact that we need to rid ourselves of the stigma that is associated with the control asserted by government through these contemptible means.

A final thought, is much of the information that seems to permeate our communications, and subsequently proven inaccurate, an indication of the existence of these problems?  Look at information sources, and their past records of reliability with open and thorough consideration.  The reliability of information is more important now than ever before.  If someone’s record is blemished with information that has proven to be inaccurate, or predictions that have been proven untrue, perhaps a very cautious regard should be applied to information from those same sources in the future.

The Press in Waco

Gary Hunt

Outpost of Freedom

December 6, 2009

During the siege in Waco, an attorney contacted me. His name was Rick Morris, with Melvin Belli’s office. He had found out about the Power of Attorney that I had obtained from David Koresh.

Rick spent almost a week in Waco, but could find nothing that would help to utilize the Power of Attorney to bring things to a peaceful solution. By then, the government had decided, after having rejected him initially, the Dick Degurien could represent Koresh.

One evening, Rick Morris called and said that we were having dinner with a producer from CBS. Dick knew him and had arranged the dinner meeting to see if that would help with our attempt to get access to Mt. Carmel.

At diner, I was introduced to Charles, the producer out of Miami, Florida, and one of his reporters, also from Miami. As they explained it, they were on their ‘tour of duty’ in Waco. It seems that the networks were rotating people in and out because the length of the siege had exceeded their original expectations.

During dinner, I asked Charles why they weren’t telling the truth about what was happening in Waco. Charles did not attempt to claim that they were telling the truth, I believe he figured I knew what was really happening. Instead, he replied, “Gary, I have a wife and two sons.” He went on the explain that his job, as a producer, was to assure that program met the criteria of his bosses. He explained that there were no ‘written policies’, however, at cocktail parties, dinners and other social functions the higher ups would always make sure that the lower downs understood what the ‘policy’ of the network was(policy would include what stories to cover, what perspective to put on stories, what stories not to cover, etc.). He said that as these ‘policies’ worked their way down from owners, through the different tiers, each tier would add a little comfort to what he understood to be desirable. By the time it got to him, it might be far more restrictive than what the owners wanted, but, well, it is important to keep your job so that you can support your family.

He told me about a young video-journalism student that had graduated from Miami-Dade Community College. He had excellent grades, and his portfolio was very well done., so, they hired him. The young journalist was given several assignments, his first week. He did a ‘bang up’ job on the stories, including the 5 Ws (Who, what, why, where, when of journalism), however, the content and presentation was not exactly what the ‘policy’ wanted. None of the stories were aired, and that first week was also the last week of his journalism career with CBS.

Every morning the FBI held a press conference. It began with an update, from the FBI perspective, and then went to eruption and answer format.

An aside: while in Waco, I met the press from various countries. In particular, I got to know reporters from Australia, England and France who were as critical of the American press as I was. They mocked the American press for dutifully going to the press conferences, writing their stories, and then attending the local ‘discussion groups’ at one of the hotel lounges, very seldom venturing out to seek other newsworthy information about what was happening a few miles down the road.

These foreign journalists were constantly looking for local people, especially Davidians, or friends of the Davidians, who could add to the story of what really was happening. Of course, their reports were not published in this country, though a few that I did read were very critical of the great American “Free Press”.

If we look at the ramifications of what the press did in Waco, we can come to some pretty frightening conclusions.

The Freedom of the Press, as defined in the Anti-Federalist Papers, is:

“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

It has always been considered the bulwark of liberty, since it could be relied upon to expose the  misdeeds of government. But, that was back when each paper was owned by different people, and the opinions expressed were as varied as the ownership of the press.

Today, three syndicates own over 99% of the printed newspapers. This leaves the control of the opinions (and the content) to three people, probably close friends, who have nearly absolute control over what is presented to the public as “truth”.

What effect did this monopolistic control of the press have on Waco?

As has been explained, what went out to mainstream America was what the government ‘created’ to excuse actions committed by the government. It was also the means by which the Davidians were made out as evil, child molesting, people. It if carried the message that implied that child molestation was something that the government (federal) had an obligation to deal with. The real reason behind the raid in Waco was lost to the contrived stories that were presented to millions of people.

The final result was that through demonization and distortion of truth, America was almost cheerful when the FBI promulgated fire swept through a wooden church, resulting in the death of many dozens of men, women and children — with nearly no expression of regret.

There can be little doubt that the press, as it was in Waco, is complicate in the murder of innocent people by their refusal to take an objective look at events in which the government is involved.

A question that we must ask ourselves is, does that make the press an accessory to murder?

C3CM

By Gary Hunt
 May 1, 1995

 I have been seeking information on a government program for over two years. As I traveled around the country, and met various people, I would ask those that might have knowledge if they had heard of the program. More recently, I have published the “Outpost of Freedom-Sentinel”, and in the “Journals of the Outpost of Freedom”. In the second edition, I ran what is contained below as a part of that story. I have not been able to confirm the validity of what is presented, however, like Operation Cablesplice, it is worthy to note that what is being presented here may be a part of the plan.

 I will get into more detail about what appears to be happening around the country right now, in the days to come. For those who have not heard, Norman Olson and Ray Southwell have stepped down, or so news reports suggest, as a result of their being set up to run a story blaming the bombing on Japan. Others are now reporting what appears to be a set up occurring, and those that saw NBC news Friday evening, know that there is an effort to associate me to militia. I will make clear here that I believe 110% in the concept of militia, but have chosen not to join because I want the mobility to travel to cover stories, and the autonomy not to be associated, for the sake of any organization, and for my own, with any groups, militia, or otherwise.

 From Outpost of Freedom – :Sentinel, Vol. II, No. 2, March 8, 1995:

 There were a few people that I knew of in the Orlando area that had, like myself, become “untaxed”, or whatever term you may prefer. At any rate, we were no longer filing income tax returns. Some had gone through seizure of property and/or bank accounts. I had my share of run ins with the IRS, but felt more comfortable with my position as it had developed over the past few years. As a result I came into contact with some people who were going through a program from the Southwest. Unfortunately, it eventually cost them their home, but, as is usually true, the seizure was based upon taxes previously acknowledged as owed.

 I bring these people up because they introduced me, via telephone, to someone they had met, on the phone, as a result of the “program” they were in. The person they introduced me to was someone (let’s call this person Carl Morgan) that lived in the Northeast. Carl had decided to come to Florida and meet some of the Citizen’s. I had agreed to put Carl up, since my office had plenty of room. Carl arrived around the 20th of February, and stayed over for about a week.

 Carl seemed to me to be very sincere. We spoke of many things that were of issue to the Patriot community. Realizing that there may be a need for an “underground railroad” for patriots, the discussion came, eventually, to aiding people in need of help. Carl’s sincerity had been demonstrated, at least in conversation, so decided to let him in on our secret. I have often wondered whether this was a wise decision. Being “in charge” of hiding Peter, Linda and Alex, I had demanded of all others involved, an absolute silence. I think that this was a key to our success, yet I had violated that “order” in bringing Carl in.

 As it was, however, benefits were derived from this inclusion. Carl, after returning home, had begun to make arrangements for “securing” people should the need arise.

 Another benefit derived was that of trust. Carl recognized our sincerity in the cause, and, apparently, recognized that we were who we had said we were. The evening that Carl met Peter, Alex, Linda and Sam we had all had a few glasses of wine. Carl seemed somewhat awed by this group we had formed. As a result, Carl had become a bit intoxicated, either by wine or awareness, or both. When Carl and I returned to the office Carl began telling me more of the work that was Carl’s tie to government.

 Carl worked for a defense intelligence agency sub-contractor. Carl’s job was to study reports by various government people and utilize them in the development of a program named “C3CM”. Carl may have overstepped what was intended in talking to me about the project that evening. The project has been a dominant thought in my mind since that evening back in 1993. Since, if it is true, it answers many questions and ties together much of what has been left hidden to the Patriot Community. Following is an overview of what I learned that evening, with some speculative comments of my own.

 “C3CM” is a national defense project designed to assist in securing the “favor” of people in any country in the world. The idea, quite simply, is to identify those that would oppose the government of choice of the United States Government (USG).

 The identification process actually applies to virtually everyone within the country, and they are identified in three main categories. I have been unable to make contact with Carl since the end of the Waco siege when Carl paid the remainder of my motel bill and we last spoke. Carl told me the names of the three categories, and I have kicked myself many times for not having made better notes at the time.

 The categories, however, can be defined as: Those who would speak out against the objectives of the USG, let us call these group “A”; Those who would listen to the A’s, let us call these group “B”; and those who would do their best to avoid involvement in the matter (some might call them sheeple), or serve the other side, which we will call group “C”. Within each of these categories there are sub-categories, most significant in A and B. The sub-categories are a prioritization of the need for neutralization. The more outspoken were, of course, more of a threat to the goals of the USG. By the same token, the B’s are identified as those more likely to act, or possibly, move into group A. Group C was not discussed in this context, but I’m sure there are those who would be favored by their identification within this category.

 The first part of the program (C3), then, is the identification and categorization of all within a country. This does not preclude the United States. In fact, I am inclined to believe that the program is being applied here, and has been for quite some time. (I will discuss more on this, later).

 The second part of the program (CM) is the application thereof. Let’s suppose that the USG wants to take over country X and install their lackeys in positions of power. Given a longer period of time, (say a couple of years), the objective of the application would be to undermine or discredit the efforts of the A’s identified as a threat to the goal. At the same time, selected members of the C group might be “presented” to the B group and represented as A type people. This would be accomplished by apparent “attacks” on the plants, or “promotion” by identifying them as leadership in articles being critical of the objectives of the A’s and B’s.

 The conviction and incarceration of A’s, where practical, would also be applied. Any charge, and excuse, any method that would discredit or remove from “power” any A would be within the guidelines of the long term approach.

 Given less time to “apply” the program, (the extreme in terms of time), every effort would be made to “take out”, or at least jail, those A’s that posed an immediate threat. The other A’s would also be targeted, based upon their priority. Any excuse would be sufficient. But, promotion of a “crime” as a perceived threat (especially one where “set ups” are easily achieved) to the society (say drugs) must be in place. By coloring the subject as a criminal, questions may not be asked at all, or, if they are asked, sufficient time will go by to accomplish the objective before answers are demanded.

 Variations of both the C3 and CM portions allow a very broad scope of application suitable to nearly any objective. And there is no reason to believe that this program is not being applied to those in the Patriot community today.

 Speculating – that this program is being applied to the Patriot community, let’s look at a tool that might be available to those in government who would be applying the program. Danny Casselara died while investigating the theft, by the Department of Justice, of the INSLAW software. INSLAW was developed, under contract to DJ and Interpol, to “track” “criminals” by Modus Operandi, habits, and other characteristics. DJ failed to make payments under the contract which forced Prometheus (the software company developing the program) into bankruptcy. DJ was then able to buy the proprietary rights to the software from the bankruptcy court, thereby cutting Prometheus completely out of the picture. Could the INSLAW software be the primary tracking and identification element in the C3 portion of the program?

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)

Let’s talk about the Constitution

Gary Hunt

March 17, 2010

Patriots have, for decades, challenged the assertion by the courts that the Constitution does not apply to you (the Defendant).  The Defendant’s reaction is that the court is ignoring the Constitution.  So, to begin with, let’s make one thing clear about the Constitution — It does not operate on you.

Now, most of you are probably scratching your head and wondering what I have been smoking.  Well, I have been smoking tobacco.  Tobacco was one of the principal means by which we were able to fund the Revolutionary War.  The use of that tobacco is my right, and is without the authority of government to intrude upon.

The government was given no authority, by the Constitution, to act upon the people, nor were the people in any way bound by the Constitution.

The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of America sets forth its (the Constitution’s) purpose:

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.

Read very carefully that the purpose is to provide for certain things, especially “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity“. Now, how is that to be accomplished?  Quite simply, by framing a government that will achieve those ends.

As was so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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.

So, the Constitution set out to complete that which was proposed in the Declaration of Independence, “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”  So, clearly, the intention of both the Declaration and the Constitution is to provide a government — not a people, but a government — which purpose is to secure those blessings.

So, a government is created by that Constitution.  If you read it, carefully, it is instructions for the creation and management of the government.  It also provides for both authorities and limitations on what the government is allowed to do, even to the point of separating the national functions from the functions of the states.

Now, let us consider what we have given the government.  We have given it “authority” to do certain things, and, have withheld from it the authority to do other things.  We have not said what we could do, or what we could not do, with only a few exceptions (counterfeiting, treason, etc.).  And, absent those exceptions, there is nothing that is imposed upon us.

Going a bit further, it must be presumed that if we granted the authority, to the government, to do certain things, that we must have had the authority to make such grant.  After all, how can I grant to someone, or something, that which I do not have, myself.

But, that is what government is (at least under out Constitution), the transfer of authority that we hold to the collective instrument of government.  For example, I have the right to protect my property.  Though I do not give up that right, I have assigned a portion of my authority to protect my property to the government.  However, this does not preclude me from protecting my property in the absence, or failure, of government to do so.  However, once the government has interceded, by, say, apprehension of someone who stole from me, I relinquish my right to shoot him in the act of stealing, and subordinate my authority to the collective authority, by virtue of the right to a trial by jury.

Similarly, we have granted the government the authority to wage war on our behalf.  We have conditioned that grant of authority in the requisite that only the Congress can Declare War, since war is, by its nature, a community affair and.  If we go to war, the majority of the community must agree to it.  Otherwise, if only one member of a community is allowed to declare war on another community, he has, by his act, embroiled all of the other members of his community, and the other community, in a blood contest.  Quite clearly, the authors of the Constitution realized this relationship when they set forth the requisite that the Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, concur on war, and did not give that authority to one man, even though he be the executive of that community.

So, we can see how the Constitution was a grant of collective authority, for the purpose of consolidating our individual authority into a government, for the purposes laid out in the preamble.

Now, if we look at the limitations and restrictions, we will see that they are not laid out to protect us.  Quite simply, they were laid out to limit the authority that we have granted.

So, the question arises as to whether that authority is only valid in the United States, or, even only applicable to citizens of the United States.

Well, the Constitution does not define where it is applicable, it only states that the government (the creation of the people) can, or cannot, do certain things.  It is the chains that bind the government.  It is the authority by which they exist.  The government cannot do what it is not authorized to do.

If you give someone a position of management in your company, and you set limitations on that management authority, the authority (under the laws of agency) extends only to what and where that authority is given.  The authority is a grant based upon what you have, and the limitations on location are, quite obviously, limited by what you own and have authority over.

So, do you have the right to kidnap someone?  If not, then you cannot grant that right to government.  In fact, the necessity of retraining someone is clearly defined, though as an afterthought (clarification) in Article V, Bill for Rights.  This was an assurance that the government could not presume to be able to do what we could not, deprive someone of their Liberty, without the consent of the people, via the Grand Jury.  Having not the power to kidnap, how can the government assume that we could give them that authority?

Punishment, likewise, is restricted to that which is not cruel, nor is unusual.  And, punishment is always a consequence of crime, that crime to have been determined to have been committed by the accused by a jury of his peers.

This, when coupled with the right not to be required (forced) to witness against yourself (again, an afterthought included in Article V. Bill of Rights), the right to be secure in your person, house, papers and effects (Article IV, Bill of Rights, again a prohibition on the government), together provide a prohibition on the government from forcing you to give up your secrets, incriminate yourself, or to any other form of duress, especially when that duress is imposed by physical means (torture).

In the final extreme, the government has withdrawn previous laws that prohibited assassination.  They have assumed that they have the authority to ‘impose capital punishment’, without benefit of a trial.

To presume that authority was granted to punish, without conviction, for the purpose of obtaining information, or to execute him without trial, is repugnant to the Constitution, and without any authority that was vested in the government by the people.

As Thomas Jefferson said, in his draft of the Kentucky Resolves (1798), “It would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men of our choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights…  Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism.  Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence.  It is jealousy and not confidence which prescribes limited constitutions, to bind down those whom we are obliged to trust with power…  Our Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, and no further, our confidence may go…  In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”

If we assume that these limitations (restraints) upon the government are not to be imposed, when the person being subjected to such unauthorized actions is in another country, and we acquiesce to the government’s presumed authority to exceed its written authority, either by enactment, or simply by actions, we have also acquiesced to the government ignoring the contract which created that government.  Once ‘granted’ that authority by the people refusing to object to such violations, we have established the precedence that the Constitution is to be interpreted by those who exist only because of it, as they see fit.  Once the government realizes that it has circumvented the Constitution, without objection, what is to stop those encroachments from going contrary to the Constitution (which it has, as explained, already done) to a point of total submission to the omnipotent power of the government?

In consideration of a solution to the problem, let us reflect on the significance of what we have learned.

Authority comes from us.  We must assume, then, that either we, or the government, will define that which we authorized.  If it be us, then we must object, whenever any such abuse of authority exists, or, we must concur.  Ironically, if we object, and that objection is not heard, our recourse is what the Founders utilized in disposing of a government that did not adhere to its contract.

On the other hand, we might assume that, since we have allowed the government to decide what we have granted them, and, barring any justification that prevents us from exercising that same right, as in the case of defending our property, we must assume that we have the right to kidnap, torture and assassinate, as the government can have not authority which we do not possess.

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)

When we look at the failure of the legislative and judicial branches of government, we must fully understand that though only few instances fully demonstrate the failure of the two branches, that the disease that those failures represent, and, that we can ‘expose,’ are demonstrative of the systemic failure of the government’s willingness to be responsible to both the Constitution and the People.

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

The 27th Amendment

 

Gary Hunt,
Outpost of Freedom
December 10, 2002

“This Constitution … shall be the supreme Law of the Land…”

Constitution, Article VI, clause 2

“… Amendments… 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…”

Constitution, Article V

“No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

Constitution, 27th Article in Amendment

“The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States….”

Constitution, Article I, Section 6, clause 1

James Madison acknowledged (in Federalist Papers #62) the necessity that all laws be written such that they could be understood by all men. There can be little doubt that the Constitution is absent the legalese, which has become so common in the enactments and resultant bureaucrat’s interpretations, of the current proliferation of legislation. Can we, however, accept that what is written in such language as can leave no doubt in any normal mind does not mean what it appears to say?

As we all know and which is self-evident, any law is based upon intent. The legislative intent is often referred to, in court, so as to determine what was intended by the legislation. It would leave little to law if any set of words were left to the best argument. Instead, we must, as a nation of law, rely upon what was intended rather than that which someone would have us believe the words to mean.

When James Madison (yes, the very same one who wrote FP 62) submitted this amendment into the assortment of twelve, from which ten were selected to form the Bill of Rights, surely, he concerned himself with the thought that many who aspire to power also aspire to greed.

27th Article in Amendment “No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.”

The 27th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on May 7, 1992. Isn’t it interesting that the states that blew the dust off of and ratified a two-hundred year old proposed amendment to the Constitution saw the necessity to do so? I suppose that they knew, or finally realized, what Madison knew then.

Even more interesting is the insight the politicians in Washington had. According to Judges Newman and Rader, in a Dissenting Opinion in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit [Williams, et al v. United States – 99-1572, 00-1254,-1255], “Congress knew that ratification was imminent and that the amendment would prevent COLA [Cost of Living Allowance – 101 P.L. 194, 103 Stat. 1716, Title XI (2001)] provisions from taking effect during future congressional terms in which they became effective.” They, therefore, enacted a 25% pay raise and annual COLA raises before the Amendment could be ratified. You see, it is clear, at least in the eyes of these two judges, and, probably, the entire court, that there was intent to circumvent the upcoming ratification of the 27th Amendment.

The case, by the way, was decided that there was nobody with standing to bring the enforcement of the 27th Amendment before the court – including a member of Congress. The initial action was brought by a taxpayer, a state Senator who had voted to ratify and a Congressman. After the first appeal, only the Congressman was considered to have standing to bring suit. The final appeal left even him without standing. This makes it easy to understand why the COLA enactment also included federal judges. They didn’t want their COLA to be questioned along with that of Congress. So, we have a Statute which appears to be in conflict with a Constitutional Amendment, but, nobody can bring the matter before the Supreme Court.

Now, many other government employees are also covered by the COLA enactment. Among them, the Government Printing Office, in their ‘publication’ on the 27th Amendment, they say, “Now that the provision is apparently a part of the Constitution, it will likely play a minor role. What it commands was already statutorily prescribed…”

So, what we have had the government (administrative, legislative and judicial branches) say to us is that a Cost of Living raise is not a raise in pay; that if it were, nobody could challenge, in court, the law that preceded the Amendment – even though in conflict; and, that Congress, unless they vote down (not voted down seven of the last twelve years) their annual raise, they will receive it, even though in obvious violation of the intent of the Amendment — an increase in compensation.

Even more interesting is the fact that changes in the cost of living are a result, in part, at least, of the ineptness of Congress in managing the country. It is also a result of their violation of another provision of the Constitution (Article I, Section 10, clause 1) which requires that the state may not “make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.” Since we are no longer even allowed to own gold and silver to pay debts, we are subject to inflation which is a result of, and common to, any form of fiat currency (Federal Reserve Notes). The inflation, which is a result of disobedience of the Constitution, has resulted in the necessity to even consider Cost of Living as a factor in maintaining one’s purchasing power. They (Congress) and their employees are assured, at our expense, of not having their purchasing power diminished. Unfortunately, in our sustaining their coffers, we don’t have the means to offset inflation – resulting in a diminishing of our purchasing power.

Have you given your consent?
Or, have you been divested by the government?

http://www.committee.org

For a list of states that ratified the 27th Amendment, go to A table of the dates of ratification of the Constitution and various amendments and pay particular attention to New Jersey and Michigan.

 

 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.