Pages

Praetorium Honoris

Wednesday, February 28, 2024

The Tree of Liberty

Lexington Minuteman
Sculpted by Henry Hudson Kitson
(Source)
Yesterday the Tree of Liberty came up in the comments, I had mentioned that it needed watering from time to time with the blood of tyrants (preferably). Boat Guy, good and learned man that he is, reminded me that the original quote also included the blood of Patriots. I knew that, but, as is my wont, I went further afield.

Now Thomas Jefferson, learned man himself and much maligned for his ownership of "enslaved persons"¹ coined the phrase we're talking about in a 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith, the son-in-law of John Adams. (Not to drop names, but there you go ...) The letter, in its historical fullness (with spelling from the original), is as follows:
I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted. (Source)
 
There is a lot of good stuff in the letter but this bit really jumped out at me -
The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. (Ibid)
Sound familiar?

I often wonder if Mr. Jefferson would have been willing to shoulder his own musket to water the tree if such a thing had proven necessary. I like to think that he would have, however I seem to recall one of the Founders protesting that he was too fragile to go to war (not Jefferson, one of the Adamses as I recall). Can't find the quote or who said it, maybe I misremember, which is getting all too frequent at my age.

Something else I found in my research for this post was over at heritage.org -
Armed revolution can be a political community’s use of lethal force to collectively defend its members from an oppressive government. Like acts of individual self-defense against criminals, acts of collective defense against tyranny must be guided by certain universally applicable principles, including necessity and proportionality. Armed revolution is a last resort warranted only under dire circumstances, where a government’s egregious and widespread abuses threaten to inflict serious harm on the natural rights of its citizens and the normal democratic processes for addressing these threats reasonably appear to be foreclosed.

It is just as unwise and reckless to view armed revolution as a solution to every perceived injustice as it is to take a “shoot first, ask questions later” approach to individual self-defense. And, just as those who use lethal force against criminals must be capable of justifying their actions in criminal or civil court, those who would use guns against their government should remember that their actions will be judged by both their contemporaries and by posterity—if not also in a court of law. (Source)
Something to keep in mind for those keyboard commandos out there who constantly cry for armed rebellion at the drop of a hat. Pick up thy musket and lead the way sonny boy. Or sit the f**k down and be quiet. But that's just me. I know war, I've seen war, and believe me, I want no part in it if I can avoid it.

But if push comes to shove, who is willing to die?
"Face down in a pile of warm brass surrounded by the bodies of my enemies sounds a lot better than cancer in the old folks home."
Like Boat Guy said, you gotta die of something, right?

One of those things which gets closer as one ages, death that is. While I'd like to hold off on that for a bit yet, if push comes to shove, I might hazard all.




Author's Note: Why yes, I am in a bit of a funk this week. Hopefully things will get better soon. Perhaps this day being the 14th anniversary of my father's passing has something to do with it.

¹ Apparently it is now considered rude to refer to such people as "slaves." If someone would care to enlighten me as to the difference, I would be obliged. I am, you must know by now, not "woke." (Though I am very much wide awake as to what's happening in the world.)

76 comments:

  1. The purpose of screwing with the language and ordinary descriptive words is to separate people into the in crowd and the outsiders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Words mean things, but too often politicians and their ilk will twist those meanings to match whatever soulless agenda they're trying to push.

      Delete
  2. Judge Kozinski, who grew up in communist Romania, in a dissenting opinion:

    :Sean SILVEIRA; Jack Safford; Patrick Overstreet; David K. Mehl; Steven Focht, Sgt.; David Blalock, Sgt.; Marcus Davis; Vance Boyce; Keneth Dewald, Plaintiffs-Appellants,
    v.
    Bill LOCKYER, Attorney General, State of California; Gray Davis, Governor, State of California, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-15098.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Filed May 6, 2003.
    KOZINSKI, Circuit Judge, dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc:

    My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed — where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's more likely that they never learned their history.

      Delete
    2. History doesn't seem to be taught in school anymore, so many people have not been offered the opportunity.

      Delete
    3. And many can't read, so they can't pick up a book. How about movies? [Thinks about the film Napoléon...] Never mind.

      Delete
    4. I would not enjoy life very much, without books. Since P. Peaches Pussycat loves to sack out on my chest as I read, she is happier because of books, too!

      Delete
  3. Orville's 1984 was intended to be a Warning, not an operational manual.

    Last year about this time I made an observation that of the "insufferable violations" described in the Declaration of Independence only the forcing the people to shelter, feed and support the TROOPS of the British Military hadn't happened.

    I could make a decent argument that we are QUITE CLOSE to this violation as it's getting ever clear that the undocumented immigrants (see I can be PC, spit) are being FORCED upon our wallets, taxes, and now "Voluntary Housing them". We've already discussed the facts that undocumented are being trained as Police Officers and citizenship through military service to shore up our POOR Recruitment efforts with born here Americans.

    Both "Sides" in our current "Leadership" may speak differently in public, yet they VOTE as friends to keep themselves deep in the public treasury troughs.

    I fear that we are in the "Party" as described in 1984. Well covered by the Media velvet glove but in actions one and the same as described.

    “Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

    Jefferson the gardening president was correct and I'm not eager to see a nasty repeat of CW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought it was Orwell, not Orville.

      "The German Nazis and the Russian Communists..."
      Only significant difference was the color of the uniforms. Same methods, same goals. Just different faces of the same totalitarian die.

      Delete
    2. Spellcheck to the rescue (sic). Yes, it's Orwell.

      Delete
    3. Orwell was a prophet. Sad to say ...

      Delete
    4. As we call it on a different forum, Otto Korekt, or just Otto.

      Delete
    5. Forget to mention - You're right Michael, there are not two parties, there is only the Uniparty which has as its goal the enrichment of its members and the right to perpetual power.

      Delete
  4. Well, Sarge, when (not if IMHO) it comes time to pick up a musket don't forget the modern weapon of war, especially since our President said F15s are needed to go against the government. Too many people in both political parties put themselves or their party first and the Country a distant third.

    ReplyDelete
  5. That they call themselves leaders of a Country rather than representatives of a Republic ... it was done mostly quietly, with the very best of intentions, without a shot being fired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll stop you there, it was NOT done with the best of intentions.

      Delete
    2. /Their/ intentions, not all ours.

      Delete
    3. Their intentions were always evil.

      Delete
  6. I think the "slaves" vs "enslaved persons" is just another way to force people to change the way they talk because being able to FORCE someone to do something different is power. Exercising power brings momentum and momentum is power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That makes perfect sense. Damn the woke!

      Delete
    2. This whole campaign against America has deep roots, it's been prepared (and going on) for decades.

      Delete
    3. No doubt this will all set in motion by some a$$hole Communist leader who is long dead. The minions won't quit because no one told them to. And the minions aren't smart enough to stop on their own because they never learned how to think.

      Delete
    4. I think a few days ago I commented on one of the posts here that we have allowed those on one side of the aisle to control the discussion by setting the terminology and definitions.

      Add to that the frequent redefining those terms (moving goal posts) in order to take on a supercillious superiority and claim some sort of moral high ground by proclaiming those on the other side ill-informed, bigots, phobes of some sort, or a negative flavorof-ist. And are helped greatly by the entertainment industry in conjunction with Big Corporate Press.

      Delete
    5. Moving the goal posts, it's how they keep the stupid off balance.

      Delete
  7. I, juvat, do solemnly swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United state against all enemies foreign and domestic that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

    I take that VERY seriously.

    BTW, the oath of office for the POTUS is very much the same as it is for Senators and Congressmen.

    juvat

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I, OldAFSarge, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

      Yes, boys and girls, the enlisted oath is different. I have noted that some enlisted folks overlook that highlighted bit ...

      But yes, my oath has no expiration date.

      Delete
    2. I, Nylon12, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office I am about to enter. So help me God. That's what I said back in December 1977 when starting work with the Social Security Administration.

      Delete
    3. I think we need to hold these sumbitches in DC (and most state capitals) to their oaths. Passing gun laws is in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment, which means if they vote for it they have violated their oaths. (What part of "shall make no law," don't these a$$holes understand?)

      And are no longer eligible to hold that office. F**k 'em, hold their butts to the fire.

      Delete
    4. For us civies out there...: I pledge allegiance to this flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

      Not as snazzy as all y'all's oaths, but it does it. Flag represents Constitution and Nation and all y'all's peoples.

      Delete
    5. There is that as well. We used to say it every morning in grade school. I'm not sure if my kids had to or not.

      There is much that is wrong with the nation right now, citizens not doing their jobs is the biggest problem/sin.

      Delete
    6. I thought that the oath for enlisted said something about obeying the "lawful" orders.

      Delete
    7. No, it doesn't, that is implied. Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) covers failures to obey orders or regulations -

      10 U.S. Code § 892 - Art. 92. Failure to obey order or regulation

      Any person subject to this chapter who—
      (1) violates or fails to obey any lawful general order or regulation;
      (2) having knowledge of any other lawful order issued by a member of the armed forces, which it is his duty to obey, fails to obey the order; or
      (3) is derelict in the performance of his duties;
      shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.


      Note that the elements of Article 92 only apply if orders were issued lawfully. Orders or regulations that violate the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders are considered unlawful. If an officer gave an order that they did not have the authority to give, that may also be unlawful.

      As you might guess, proving that the orders were unlawful might be tough.

      Delete
    8. The Australian Armed Forces Oath of Enlistment:-

      I, (name), promise that I will well and truly serve His Majesty King Charles the Third, His Heirs and Successors according to law, as a member of the (insert Royal Australian Navy, Australian Army, or Royal Australian Air Force) ... and that I will resist His enemies and faithfully discharge my duty according to law.

      Delete
    9. Interesting, the difference in oaths.

      Delete
    10. I get into endless arguments regarding our head of state being a "foreign monarch". Whenever the King is referred to under Australian law we are referring to the King of Australia, Charles the Third, as he was made so by an act of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

      Delete
    11. It's the Commonwealth. Many folks, particularly us Yanks, don't get that.

      Delete
  8. I couldn't find him saying something about too frail for war, but I did find this:

    “The Affairs of America, are in so critical a State, such great Events are struggling for Birth, that I must not quit this station at this Time. Yet I dread the melting Heats of a Philadelphia Summer, and know not how my frail Constitution will endure it. Such constant Care, such incessant Application of Mind, drinking up and exhausting the finer Spirits upon which Life and Health so essentially depend, will wear away a stronger Man than I am.—Yet I will not shrink from this Danger or this Toil. While my Health shall be such that I can discharge in any tolerable manner, the Duties of this important Post, I will not desert it.”

    As for "Slaves" as a term, don't worry about perceived rudeness- we don't have Slaves in America anymore, you aren't a slaveholder, and people are far too sensitive for my liking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I finally watched HBO's John Adams, I liked the man before, if that series is even halfway accurate, I now love the man. What a blessing that he was around in those days.

      Oh believe me, I'll use the term slave if needs be, just to piss people off. 😉

      Delete
    2. Adams is my favorite Founding Father.

      Delete
    3. Jefferson may not have taken up a musket, but he signed his name to the Declaration of Independence, knowing full well that if the cause failed, he would be hanged for treason. That takes another kind of courage.

      Delete
  9. Sarge - One does not have to have been involved in war to (at some level) understand the horrors of war. History will do that for you - and in some ways will do one better, as it will show the short and long term effects the actions. Not everything that people think is a good idea at the time is - one wonders if, in the pallid light of defeat, many of the initiators of wars that ended up losing would have considered alternative courses of action.

    One of the most frustrating thing on the InterWeb these days are those that call for "Mountains of Blood and Rivers of Skulls" as a problem resolution statement. Even if (Heaven forfend) such an action was taken, and if such an action reached a favorable conclusion to those that started the conflict (see comment above), likely one will not get the outcome one will want. Societies coming out of conflict, especially civil conflicts (because practicing war on your neighbor or fellow citizen is always more savage than on "the enemy over there") are just as likely to be societies with population decimation, infrastructure decimation, and failed economies. Hardly the problem resolution people started out with. And, of course, rebuilding such a society often takes an entirely different set of skills than fighting - and one hopes, of course, one has not removed (via death, injury, or emigration) the vast swaths of population responsible for trivial tasks like growing food, making things, and fixing plumbing.

    Let alone, of course, other bad actors taking advantage of the issue to change the world more to their liking.

    I say the "Mountains of Blood and Rivers of Skulls" group of people. That is a bit pejorative I suppose: there are just as many on "the other side" calling for the same sort of thing - with, of course, exactly the same sort of outcome.

    To quote those masters of Political Thought, Guns N Roses, "What's so civil about war, anyway?"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah yes, the keyboard commandos, they need to hold their water when the grown-ups are talking. Kinda embarrassing calling for all-out war when you're typing from your Mom's basement.

      Delete
    2. The way to call out the keyboard commandos is to post "You go first."

      And if they respond with anything other than "I just opened fire on XYZ," then the next post is "How ya doing, fedboi?"

      Because, sadly, all too often the KCs are either whiny little snots trying to provoke people, fed informants or actual feds, or a combination of both.

      Our federal government is against us. But I'll wait. Hoping that non-violent revolution, like say exceeding the level of cheat in an election, can save us before we have no recourse.

      Delete
    3. The DOJ in particular. My hope is the same as yours, but if push comes to shove, those that brought us to that dire situation need, in fact must, pay the ultimate price.

      Delete
    4. @ Beans
      when/if you find yourself in the vanguard, lemme know n' I'll keep pace 'longside y' with muh walker n' muh .45-70 Gubbmint

      Delete
    5. We just need to find you a good vantage point. With that beast you can really reach out and touch someone!

      Delete
  10. I do wonder how many people reading that in this day and age understand what a kite is in the context of " in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order." Farmers might understand; few others, I suspect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes indeed, for those who didn't know, this is equivalent to having the fox guard the henhouse. "Kite" is an older term for a bird of prey.

      Delete
    2. It's also an actual name for a rather nasty chicken killing bird. Though it may be used as a collective term in this case. Or maybe an actual kite bird. Who knows, sentiment works either way.

      And the reason most people don't know what a kite is (either the collective or specific term) is that back in the late 60's the commie pinko red socialists took over all aspects of the education system and it fell out of vogue to have school children read the Federalist Papers or the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence and then discuss what they read. Almost like the CPRSessess meant for the aforementioned documents to fall out of use, right?

      Delete
    3. When Jonnie/Jane can't read and they're a high school graduate, then yes, the education system has failed. That's not true everywhere, but true enough in too many places.

      Delete
  11. As we're quoting those who have gone before; I'll contribute one attributed to Aaron Zelman " If every Jewish family had a Mauser rifle, 20 rounds of ammunition and the will to use them, Adolph Hitler would be a minor footnote in the history of the Weimar Republic."
    There's always Solzhenitsyn as well " Oh how we burned in the camps..."
    Boat Guy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that right there!

      Was it Solzhenitsyn who said that if every secret policeman feared for his safety when arresting dissidents in the night then they'd stop doing that? (Or words to that effect.)

      Delete
    2. Found the quote I was thinking of! Part of the same "oh how we burned ..."

      “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

      Delete
    3. That's the one!
      BG

      Delete
    4. A more contemporary one is Matt Bracken's " Dear Mister Security Agent". Probably still up on his site.
      BG

      Delete
    5. BG #2 - And you can read that here

      It's good.

      Delete
  12. Like Sarge, one of TJ's statements stood out:
    "The people can not be all, and always, well informed. "

    We have regressed badly in that regard in the last 20 years or so.
    JB

    ReplyDelete
  13. Well, other terms for slaves...

    Chattel. Since they were Chattel Slaves. Meaning "property."

    Or obsolete farm equipment. But that's really nasty.

    'Enslaved People' covers too many whites, as whites were used as slaves after the English Civil War and the Restoration (just watch "Captain Blood" to get a feel for that one, heck, just watch "Captain Blood" as it's a darned good movie.) The 'Native Americans' enslaved lots of whites, and other NAs, and Blacks, and Hispanics (actual Spanish Hispanics, and mixed-race Hispanics...) Everyone enslaved everybody. It used to be the natural thing to do.

    And now it's coming back in the form of debt peonage and prison labor. Yehaw. The wheel of fortune ever rotates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's one of the less attractive traits of our species.

      Delete
    2. In some places and times, slaves had more rights and power than non-slaves. Scandinavian culture of the late dark ages/early middle ages, the Janissaries, Rome pre-late imperium, lots of examples of 'good slavery.'

      Delete
    3. Um, then they wouldn't really be slaves, would they?

      Delete
    4. If they can't leave they are slaves.

      Delete
  14. The ministry still has the gazetters doing their bidding.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice 18th Century reference. True, sad but true.

      Delete
  15. I think in the now long perished long ago there were many men that trembled at the idea of generals because they were both familiar with history and the history of our rebellion and knew that it was commanded in the field by a man who had served the old kingdom and learned some of the trade of warfare. He was quick to hire on those of similar ilk who offered their services to the new Republic. There was that little runt in France who took over the revolution. Took it a whole new direction nobody saw coming. You saw the same thing go on down South where Bolivar and a few other generals dominated the rebellions against Spain. We had that moment when MacArhur retired and people wondered about some sort of force of nature. It does seem to me that most of those who talk/write about effusions of blood on some bloody tree are never the ones that pick up the rifles and swords and look around for likely throats to slit. Just off the top of my head I tried to think of any distinguished warfighting general of the last 30 years I'd think worth the powder and shot to blow him up and none spring to mind. They are all dismal failures as men and as leaders.

    It might be time to reread Memories by Jackie Fisher.

    ReplyDelete

Just be polite... that's all I ask. (For Buck)
Can't be nice, go somewhere else...

NOTE: Comments on posts over 5 days old go into moderation, automatically.