Americans Ignore Simple Truth: We Are Friends or Enemies of Liberty By Jeff Utsch on December 29, 2014 in Daily Rant 22 Americans become distracted, even lost in the nomenclature of the day and that, I believe, is part of the problem. Our willingness to buy into false titles and false premises is, precisely, where we lose focus. We have today many who call themselves Democrats, Republicans, Progressives, Libertarians, Liberals, Conservatives and Moderates. What do these labels mean? No two people would agree exactly. But, in my mind, there are but two camps – loyalists and patriots — and in order to appreciate that distinction it is necessary to peer back in history. Loyalists. This was the self-assigned moniker of those who chose to remain loyal to the Crown even after the bloody day of April 19, 1775, in Lexington and Concord. The Redcoats came out in force that day to arrest patriot leaders Sam Adams and John Hancock, who were said to be sleeping in Lexington and, more importantly, seize the stores of powder and arms held in Concord. The British failed on both accounts. Adams and Hancock had prior warning of an approaching enemy and ample time to get out of harm’s way. Minutemen from the area gathered in Concord and kept the British from taking their precious arms. Patriots. The Minutemen assigned themselves this label and, while I will not review all the events that led up to this first bloodshed of the Revolutionary War, I will review motivations that make men and women decide their sides. In Boston, Loyalists were comprised of differing factions, but many had financial strings to the mother country. Tax collectors, appointed officials, and those on the British payroll did not want to see the status quo upset. These individuals valued their bottom line and security more than freedoms. Loyalty to the British was, for most Loyalists, not merely being loyal to the Crown but being loyal to their own pocketbooks and self-interest. Many Patriots also had ties with the mother country but their values were different. They valued freedoms and opportunities more than their own safety and security. The issue? What was most important to them? What did they want for their children? Yes, I’ve heard about the revisionist history that claims our Founders were the ones with the selfish ambition and had the most to gain financially. This does not come close to reflecting reality. It is correct that the cry of “No Taxation Without Representation” was real. We tend to think that this was why we rebelled in the first place. In part, it was. But, it was much more than this. The Declaratory Acts of 1766 by Parliament affirmed, “Parliament is sovereign in all cases whatsoever,” in passing laws within the Colonies. We also tend to believe that if the Colonists would have just had representation in Parliament then all would have been well and the patriots of the day would have been placated. NOT SO! The patriots recognized Parliament’s sovereignty over a few things — even without representation. On the whole, however, the Colonists did not want to be ruled in “all things” by a far off entity that believed it knew best what the colonists needed locally. Even if the Colonists could have had representation in Parliament, they made it clear that it would not have mattered. They were afraid that if they were to send elected officials to London, those representatives would become corrupt and part of the elite culture of London and forget about who put them there. The colonists wanted local self-rule, except within limited and specified issues. Being ruled by a body of men claiming authority in “all cases whatsoever” was, to use today’s vernacular, a non-starter. The Patriots wanted their Freedoms restored and were willing to sacrifice all if necessary to obtain it. Patrick Henry had just given his “Liberty or Death” speech at St. John’s Church In Richmond in March of 1775 and made it clear that Freedom itself is the most precious gift in this life and life was not worth living without it. The sentiment was spreading that those who believed otherwise were lapdogs of the Crown and not worthy to be counted amongst fellow Americans. As such, the Patriots determined that “Loyalists” was too generous a term to call those who choosing their own narrow interests above their freedoms. Rightfully, they were branded, “Enemies of Liberty.” This had a sobering effect on both sides as it wiped the fog from the eyes who could not yet see. Was it that simple? Was this to be a battle between those who were “Enemies of Liberty” and those who were not? Yes, it was. Today, as I said earlier, we have what appear to be a number of movements. But, I repeat, there are but two. There are the Patriots, who are the Friends of Liberty and understand the Founders obsession with local rule and determination (except for the few powers as delegated to the Federal Government through the Constitution). And there are the Enemies of Liberty who benefit from the great leviathan in DC and would rather placate their own interests met than see freedom reign. They sing the battle Cry of Freedom but have forgotten the meaning of the word. They look to Washington to handle all the issues of the day and are all too happy to lay over and take the bribe –in whatever form– rather than do what is right. These are those who value their personal safety, security, comfort, convenience and lifestyle more than freedom and the sacrifices it takes to maintain. Then there are the Patriots, who are the Friends of Liberty and understand the Founders obsession with local rule and determination (except for the few powers as delegated to the Federal Government through the Constitution). Which camp are you in? mychal-massie/premium/enemies-of-liberty/
Posted on: Sat, 03 Jan 2015 01:37:13 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015