Pages: [1] 2 
|
 |
|
 Author
|
Topic: Was it mything in 1776 too? (Read 1577 times)
|
|
Junker
|
The continuing story from Strike That Root: Not in Liberty BornLiberty was in the thoughts of many American
colonials, probably often combined with an
assumption that liberty was somehow compatible
with the presence of a political government.
But there were also many who wanted real liberty,
with no national government to compromise it.
Things did not turn out that way.
Certainly by the standards of classical liberals,
the actions that led to the formation of the
American governments were done without the consent
of the governed.
Nor in mythology bound. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Hillbilly123069
Guest
|
Our government worked fine until 1913 when defense contractors started using lobbyists during WW1.You can actually see where the course of government changed.The income tax was born.Politicians started seeing under-the-table ways of making money in pursuit of a new found greed and have been letting corporate intersts walk all over Our rights. Here is what was in the thoughts on the Founding Fathers: United States Founding Fathers John Hancock Quotes Acknowledgment of God 1."I have the most animating confidence that the present noble struggle for liberty will terminate gloriously for America. And let us play the man for our God, and for the cities of our God; whilst we are using the means in our power, let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe, who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity. And having secured the approbation of our hearts by a faithful and unwearied discharge of our duty to our country, let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of Him who raiseth up and pulleth down the empires and kingdoms of the world as He pleases; and with cheerful submission to His sovereign will, devoutly say, "Although the fig tree shall not blossom neither shall fruit be in the vines, the labor of the olive shall fail and the field shall yield not meat, the flock shall be cut off from the fold and there shall be no herd in the stalls, yet we will rejoice in the Lord, we will joy in the God of our salvation." [Habakkuk 3:17-18]" - United States Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock, "John Hancock", John R Musick, (Chicago: H.G. Campbell Publishing Company, 1898), pp. 118, 156, Speech commemorating the Boston Massacre of 1770, on March 5, 1774 2."In circumstances dark as these, it becomes us as men and Christians to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments ... all confidence must be withheld from the means we use and reposed only on that God who rules in the armies of heaven and without whose blessing the best human councils are but foolishness and all created power vanity. It is the happiness of his church that when the powers of earth and hell combine against it ... then the throne of grace is of the easiest access and its appeal thither is graciously invited by that Father of mercies who has assured it that when His children ask bread He will not give them a stone. ... That it be, and hereby is, recommended to the good people of this colony ... as a day of public humiliation, fasting and prayer ... to confess the sins ... to implore the forgiveness of all our transgressions ... and especially that the union of the American colonies in defense of their rights, for which, hitherto, we desire to thank Almighty God, may be preserved and confirmed. ... and that America may soon behold a gracious interposition of Heaven." - United States Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock, "The Journals of Each Provincial Congress of Massachusetts in 1774 and 1775", William Lincoln, editor, (Boston: Dutton and Wentworth, 1838), pp. 144-145, proclamation of John Hancock from Concord, April 15, 1775, four days before the British marched on Lexington and Concord which resulted in the "shot heard round the world". Christian Political and Military Action 1."I conjure you, by all that is dear, by all that is honorable, by all that is sacred, not only that ye pray but that ye act." - United States Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock, "Great Americans of History - John Hancock", John R Musick, (Chicago: Union School Publishing Company, 1898), pp. 116-117 Christianity in Government 1."Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. ... Manners, by which not only the freedom but the very existence of the republics are greatly affected, depend much upon the public institutions of religion." - United States Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Hancock, "The Independent Chronicle", (Boston: Nathaniel Willis), Vol. XII, p. 4, John Hancock's Inaugural Address as Governor of Massachusetts, November 2, 1780 Party of 1776 - "No King but King Jesus" - www.partyof1776.net |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 05:02:18 AM by Hillbilly123069 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
suijurisfreeman
|
"Our government worked fine until 1913 . . ."  By whose definition? "Our government"? I'm not a party to any "social compact", I've never given my consent to be governed! Based on what I've read: (1) the "founding fathers" for the most part didn't believe that the American people were fit to govern themselves. (2) the explicit consent to be governed was never obtained from the majority of those living in America at the time of the revolution. (3) Jefferson knew full well that he wasn't authorized under the Constitution to make the Louisiana Purchase. (4) Those men who met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 were not authorized to form a new government, merely to amend the Articles of Confederation -- so in all reality the government of this country began by doing that which it was not authorized to do and has continued to do so until this day! In my opinion any liberty that was fought for/won during the revolution was lost upon the ratification of the constitution of 1787. It's all an illusion, it's all about power over the masses! The only "freedom" one has is that freedom that one grants to themselves and then lives said freedom to the fullest each and every day! Cry freedom!"Christianity in Government" Sure! Kinda like the Salem witch trials of 1697 -- now there was government sanctioned christianity in action! One doesn't have to read too much history to come to the conclusion that throughout history religion and government have skipped hand in hand down the road to tyranny. |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 19, 2009, 06:27:42 AM by suijurisfreeman »
|
Logged
|
I am a FREE Human Being and have the RIGHT to ignore the State!
I know my rights, I declare my rights, I exercise my rights, and I damn well will defend my rights!
Long live individualist-anarchism!
Freedom is contagious, knowledge is the source of infection! Help spread the disease by infecting knowledge!
|
|
|
Risasi
Full Member
 Offline
Member #2354
Posts: 323
|
One doesn't have to read too much history to come to the conclusion that throughout history religion and government have skipped hand in hand down the road to tyranny.
 That is classic... |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I am a Watcher watcher...
|
|
|
freewoman
Member
Sr. Member
Offline
Member #878
Posts: 1545
|
Thanks for the article link, Junker. Thought-provoking, as usual.
I'm with SJF here--the Constitution and Bill of Rights were a compromise that didn't really provide liberty. In comparison with other nations, yeah, it's pretty good. But that's not the ultimate comparison. The ultimate comparison is the individual.
The link between religion and government has been happening since Sumeria, and that combo is never a good one for the individual.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
scarmig
Administrator
Sr. Member
Offline
Member #18
Posts: 4546
|
Unless you happen to be an amoral psychopath bent on personal power and the exploitation of other people. Then its farking FABULOUS!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
We've built a world safe for fools, and are overrun by them.
|
|
|
Risasi
Full Member
Offline
Member #2354
Posts: 323
|
The link between religion and government has been happening since Sumeria, and that combo is never a good one for the individual. Is that a reference to Nimrod/Semiramis? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I am a Watcher watcher...
|
|
|
freewoman
Member
Sr. Member
Offline
Member #878
Posts: 1545
|
The link between religion and government has been happening since Sumeria, and that combo is never a good one for the individual. Is that a reference to Nimrod/Semiramis? By extension, yes; IMO, the Sumerians initiated the trend of combining religion and government. The various gods/goddesses could well have been either religious authorities or governmental powers. There's more to it than just one or two "gods", though. YMMV, though to be honest, anyone who studies this stuff is basically coming up with his/her own opinions. History is not objective. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Junker
|
Thank you, Freewoman. I pass along what I find worthwhile.
I thought this one brought up some of the interesting points
about that subject.
And yup, SJF hits it in the head, as usual. They missed it on
their first step, second step, ..., and on up to today's step.
Funny thing about jurisdiction-- they seem to have it backwards.
The individual on his own property has overriding authority
and jurisdiction, then comes the cooperating neighbors, then....
Here the nationals opine they have it, over state, over counties,
over towns, and finally over each individual. Tyranny was built
in to the deal from the start. It's speculation whether the so-
called Founding Fathers knew what they were doing, but the
current tyranny happens obviously, as with each taser shock.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Radio Flyer
|
Our government worked fine until 1913 when defense contractors started using lobbyists during WW1.You can actually see where the course of government changed.The income tax was born.Politicians started seeing under-the-table ways of making money in pursuit of a new found greed and have been letting corporate intersts walk all over Our rights.
While 1913 was a remarkable year for loss of our rights, the end of the War of Unionist Aggression in 1965 marked the total win for the Hamiltonians, things became worse in incremental stages at that point. An unnecessary war for many reasons. Just as many of the Founding fathers were Deists (or like Franklin agnostic/atheist) going so far as to have Jefferson note the need for the "wall of separation" from religion and government. The Founders were far closer to the time when there were few places where you could not ultimately be KILLED for "heretical" thoughts. Many religious leaders of the time agreed with the "wall of separation" to keep religious conflicts from spilling into the general population. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
"We've arranged a global civilization in which the most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster." -Carl Sagan See my blog for rants and information I find useful or interesting. http://preparednesssubculture.blogspot.com/ |
|
|
gooch
Mr. Badger ? Maybe ....
Sr. Member
Offline
Member #1903
Posts: 4820
32*25' N X 77*05' W X 060 Mag
|
Now now folks don't be too hard on the fellow.
Our intrepid poster is working hard to find these "references" to support his thesis.
["The US IS a Christian Nation founded upon Christian Values."]
He seems to be stuck on one special website at the moment.
And have you noticed that This One man [Geo Washington last time, John Hancock this time] Is the yardstick for all of our founding fathers ... out of how many ? 300 ? More ? And those are only the representatives who attended the Congress in Philadelphia. What of the individual States Congresses ? [Congressii ?] Another 300 X 13 ? BUT This One Man is all the proof one needs ....
Let him keep digging and find out for himself that religion is little more than a support system for priests and snake oil salesmen.
Yawn ... I can hardly wait for the next installment.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hezekiah Wyman My Personal Role Model/Hero "Come and Take It" The Gonzales Flag, Gonzales, Texas 1835 "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." SUN-TZU Oath Keeper since 1966
|
|
|
gooch
Mr. Badger ? Maybe ....
Sr. Member
Offline
Member #1903
Posts: 4820
32*25' N X 77*05' W X 060 Mag
|
The link between religion and government has been happening since Sumeria, and that combo is never a good one for the individual. Is that a reference to Nimrod/Semiramis? By extension, yes; IMO, the Sumerians initiated the trend of combining religion and government. The various gods/goddesses could well have been either religious authorities or governmental powers. There's more to it than just one or two "gods", though. YMMV, though to be honest, anyone who studies this stuff is basically coming up with his/her own opinions. History is not objective. [large grains of salt will be dispensed with an appropriate "donation" to our glorious Elder Gracious ME] is that it is older than the Sumerians and probably goes back to the beginning of the extended family "Clan" where an "Elder"/ "Priest" was the final arbiter of all discussions { as to Truth, Reason [for being] and Causes [of lightning, floods et cetera] } and the dispenser of all wisdom. At the piddling cost to the tribe of his livelihood and social position. You wouldn't want Your tribes "Wise Man" to be seen in last years leopard skins would you ? Passing his "Gift" along to his sons or daughters or IF Need be to a chosen acolyte who has devoted his/her life to the aggrandizement and gratification of the "Elder" ... of course ...  Now where in Gracious Me has my acolyte run off to I wonder ? I'm nearly out of peeled grapes ... this will never do. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Hezekiah Wyman My Personal Role Model/Hero "Come and Take It" The Gonzales Flag, Gonzales, Texas 1835 "To win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the highest skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the highest skill." SUN-TZU Oath Keeper since 1966
|
|
|
|
Junker
|
...
While 1913 was a remarkable year for loss of our rights, the end of the War of Unionist Aggression in 1965 marked the total win for the Hamiltonians, things became worse in incremental stages at that point. An unnecessary war for many reasons.
Just as many of the Founding fathers were Deists (or like Franklin agnostic/atheist) going so far as to have Jefferson note the need for the "wall of separation" from religion and government. The Founders were far closer to the time when there were few places where you could not ultimately be KILLED for "heretical" thoughts. Many religious leaders of the time agreed with the "wall of separation" to keep religious conflicts from spilling into the general population.
And Tommy Paine's Age of Reason, &c., but it seems that then the religioners wanted religious freedom, but only for themselves. Other faiths could hang in the wind. As Benjamin Franklin advised Thomas Paine on a manuscript Paine sent that advocated against the concept of a providential God: TO THOMAS PAINE DEAR SIR, I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your prin- ciples, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be,
a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief
to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits
against the wind, spits in his own face.(from http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=58 ) |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
SoundTheBell
Full Member
Offline
Member #4090
Posts: 384
|
This article is disturbing on many levels. (That's not saying I agree or disagree, just that it's unfamiliar territory and therefore, disturbing.)
In digging for the truth of a matter, I like to break it down into pieces - easier than eating the elephant whole.
A big to-do is made in the article about the Louisiana Purchase, so I figured I'd start there.
The author opines "Those French people had been purchased along with the land as though they were serfs."
My first reaction was: Well, were they serfs? What was the French gov't at the time? Did the French believe they had the right to sell those people? (We would argue that no one ever has the right to sell another person, but we're looking at history here and what was done, not what we wish were done.) Were the French settlers, by French law, private owners of their tracts of land, or was it all "government property" that they were allowed (forced?) to squat on?
I can't figure it out. In 1803 Napoleon hadn't yet been proclaimed Emperor. Things were still being run by the French Consulate (which Napoleon was the head of). It was supposedly a Republic, or at least started that way, but the sources I've found are confusing as to whether it really still was in that year or not. Apparently Napoleon had been laying down all kinds of laws and making changes which laid the path to the Empire a year later.
It could very well be that under the many laws Napoleon et al had been changing, the people had indeed become serfs and therefore, the French Consulate acted under the impression that it could sell the people, along with the land.
The issue of whether or not these Frenchmen on the Louisiana soil were private owners or not is a large one, and key to the discussion.
And then that brings it down to whether or not the Frenchmen had a right to the land at all, and whether or not they could sell it.
It seems as though they claimed the land through exploration. Later through military scuffles, Spain claimed it, and then due to the Third Treaty of San Ildefonso, the French got it back. The French Consulate, headed by Napoleon, sold the territory to the United States.
- That raises the question, can land be claimed through exploration and squatting? Did the French purchase this land from Indians? It doesn't seem so, or at least isn't recorded as widely as the Manhattan Purchase.
- If the Indians did indeed sell it, how can the Indians claim ownership? Via exploration and squatting? We're back to square one.
That kind brings me full circle to: How can one claim ownership of a piece of land? Do we rely upon the current governmental structure (at the time of claim), or do we dare step back in time - knowing full well that we can't simply step back to a time that is convenient for us; if we begin to step back then we must step all the way back to the beginning.
If those Frenchmen were indeed serfs, then the Louisiana Purchase did sell the people along with the land. If the people were free men (under their Republican gov't) with private property; then yes, the US did usurp their property and assume gov't control over the people without their consent - but with the French Consulate's consent. (Blame where blame is due - it wasn't just one party.) Did the French gov't own the land, or did the people? If the people did not want to be US citizens, they could have left - as the US gov't at the time gave them the right to leave or stay, as they wished - they weren't vassals who were restricted in their comings and goings. Now, whether or not they would want to pick up and leave the land they'd worked is another matter entirely, but they did have the right, under the US gov't.
My mind is tangled up in all of these wanderings. Thoughts to get me back on track?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
freewoman
Member
Sr. Member
Offline
Member #878
Posts: 1545
|
STB: How's about a 28-page thread on land ownership for ya? Here's the link: http://www.thementalmilitia.com/forums/index.php?topic=7568.0This discussion was wide-ranging, so hang onto your hat; that way your brain will mostly stay in your skull. But the thread will cover a lot of what many of us would tell you, so check it out when you have time. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 
|
|
|
 |
The Mental Militia Forums
