0 comment Saturday, October 18, 2014 | admin
One of our 'Lighthouses in a foggy world': Samuel Adams, born September 27, 1722, in Boston, Massachusetts.He was a Revolutionary political leader and one of the most prolific writers on politics in his generation.
He was one of the organizers of the Boston Tea Party, a founder of the Sons of Liberty, and was one of the first voices to call for independence from Britain, one of the others being Patrick Henry.
He was a delegate to the Continental Congress between 1774 and 1781.
He was a signatory of the Declaration of Independence.
Quotes: A general dissolution of the principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy...While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but once they lose their virtue, they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader...If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security.''
''How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words!"
''He who is void of virtuous attachments in private life is, or very soon will be, void of all regard for his country. There is seldom an instance of a man guilty of betraying his country, who had not before lost the feeling of moral obligations in his private connections."
Labels: American History, American Revolution, Birthdays, Founding Fathers
0 comment Saturday, August 2, 2014 | admin
In the discussion of my earlier post on 'Founding Stock heritage', the question arose: would we be better off today had our colonial English ancestors not seceded, and instead remained under English rule? Or perhaps we would be better off if we had stayed a colony and presumably been granted dominion status like Canada, or been part of some kind of united English North America? (I am paraphrasing and adding a little of my own elaboration, but I think the spirit of the inquiry is intact in my version.)
I did a little ruminating on this question overnight, and a few questions arose in my mind. I suppose we might look at Canada as it exists now, and ask if our history would parallel theirs had we not become independent.
That thought led to the question in my mind: how is it that the Canadians differ in significant ways from Americans? We all are "children of a common mother".
I suppose Canada is the country that, superficially at least, is most like the United States. I have often thought that if I were to live in another country, Canada would be the one that would require the least cultural adjustment. Granted, when I first thought of that, I was quite liberal, and as I've moved rightward, back to the truths of my upbringing, Canada has become even more liberal. So I would not feel as much at home politically there. However, Canadian people, in my experience, are very congenial and polite, though I know many of them resent America's imperial politics and 'gun culture'. At the same time, many right-wing Americans disdain Canada for its liberalism.
But how did the differences between Canadians and Americans come to be? We did start out as English colonies, and we had similar mixes of settlers, from the British Isles as well as from France. So how did it come to be that our colonial ancestors became restive and rebellious and began to resist rule by our cousins in London, while the Canadians retained their allegiance to the Crown, and did not agitate for independence?
I often stress the role of genes in character and behavior. We are not too dissimilar from our Canadian brothers in our ancestral origins -- or we weren't, at first. And we did share a common culture in our British roots and our English language. Yet we seem to have grown apart.
One other commonality between the U.S. and Canada is our history with the 'indigenous peoples'. We share the frontier experience. According to some historians, our experience of the frontier, of the vast open spaces, of the conflict with the Indians -- these things made Americans the people they are, what with our 'rugged individualism' and our attachment to our right to bear arms.
''The Frontier Thesis, also referred to as the Turner Thesis, is the argument advanced by historian Frederick Jackson Turner in 1893 that the origin of the distinctive egalitarian, democratic, aggressive, and innovative features of the American character has been the American frontier experience. He stressed the process�the moving frontier line�and the impact it had on pioneers going through the process. In the thesis, the frontiercreated freedom, by "breaking the bonds of custom, offering new experiences, and calling out new institutions and activities."
Some people are adamant that Americans' fighting spirit comes from our 'Scots-Irish blood', you know, the 'born fighting' image.
Lately, however, it seems that the American 'spirit' of resistance is curiously absent, unless you count the Tea Parties, which is rather sad.
However, we and the Canadians have taken different turns.
This page gives some information on Canada's demographics.
Here, you can see a breakdown by ethnicity.
My impression has always been that Canada has quite a lot of Scottish blood, perhaps more, in proportion to population, than America. And the statistics seem to indicate that.
Why, then, are they not the fighters and the rebels? Canada also has a fair amount of Irish-descended people. Surely all this 'fiery Celtic blood' should have made the Canadians more feisty, but overall we tend to think of Canadians as a very pacific people.
Genetics and culture don't seem to account for much of the difference between us. Or can it be that the stereotypes of the 'Celtic' peoples are not altogether true?
Whatever the reason, America and Canada diverged, culturally and politically. And it seems that the Canadian government is now even more attached to, and enamored of, multiculturalism and diversity than our benighted government.
So paradoxically, though we and Canada diverged, we are becoming similar in our 'diversity' and multicultural, polyglot populations. Isn't it strange how 'diversity' breeds uniformity?
I think it's a little futile to think about how we might have been better off had we stayed under English rule, or how we might have fared had we and Canada been merged into one political unit.
'We' wouldn't have been 'we', then, or would we? Things would have taken a different course. But we will never know, will we? Unless, of course, the globalist overlords openly proclaim the 'North American Union' that they have been engineering for decades. Then both we and Canada will be united in some polyglot mixed-multitude political unit, bearing little to no resemblance to the countries we've known and loved.
Overall, I think it was better that our Founding Fathers won our independence. Being governed by those closer to us, in a smaller-scale government (as existed at the beginning of our Republic) is preferable to being governed by a far-off government which is usually not in touch with the needs or concerns of a group of subjects across the ocean. As H.P. Lovecraft noted in the essay I quoted earlier, there was not any anti-British xenophobia involved in our secession. We were all of the same people; it was not like casting off foreign rule, as some would make it.
It is unfortunate -- no, it's tragic, that our Republic as it was originally founded could not be maintained. I say it could not be maintained, because our Founders were very explicit that the system they set up was not suitable to a rabble or a group of disparate peoples. They said that the system would not be suitable to any but a moral and religious people -- which we have not been for some time now. And most people who give any thought to these things know that a representative government depends on the people being reasonably educated and literate, informed, and responsible. Does this describe our current American electorate?
So our Republic has been gutted from the inside, by a number of factors, and it's to be determined whether it can be salvaged, or whether it is even desirable to salvage it.
It's certainly interesting to ponder over ''what if?'' -- what if we had not become independent? But we can never really know how things would have turned out.
But perhaps thinking about these things -- such as what made America the country it has become? -- will give us opportunity to think about where we are going, and how we can avoid the gross mistakes of the past.
I feel sure that if our colonial fathers could have foreseen what would become of their country, perhaps they would not even have bothered to shed their blood to create it. And that is a bitter realization.
I did a little ruminating on this question overnight, and a few questions arose in my mind. I suppose we might look at Canada as it exists now, and ask if our history would parallel theirs had we not become independent.
That thought led to the question in my mind: how is it that the Canadians differ in significant ways from Americans? We all are "children of a common mother".
I suppose Canada is the country that, superficially at least, is most like the United States. I have often thought that if I were to live in another country, Canada would be the one that would require the least cultural adjustment. Granted, when I first thought of that, I was quite liberal, and as I've moved rightward, back to the truths of my upbringing, Canada has become even more liberal. So I would not feel as much at home politically there. However, Canadian people, in my experience, are very congenial and polite, though I know many of them resent America's imperial politics and 'gun culture'. At the same time, many right-wing Americans disdain Canada for its liberalism.
But how did the differences between Canadians and Americans come to be? We did start out as English colonies, and we had similar mixes of settlers, from the British Isles as well as from France. So how did it come to be that our colonial ancestors became restive and rebellious and began to resist rule by our cousins in London, while the Canadians retained their allegiance to the Crown, and did not agitate for independence?
I often stress the role of genes in character and behavior. We are not too dissimilar from our Canadian brothers in our ancestral origins -- or we weren't, at first. And we did share a common culture in our British roots and our English language. Yet we seem to have grown apart.
One other commonality between the U.S. and Canada is our history with the 'indigenous peoples'. We share the frontier experience. According to some historians, our experience of the frontier, of the vast open spaces, of the conflict with the Indians -- these things made Americans the people they are, what with our 'rugged individualism' and our attachment to our right to bear arms.
''The Frontier Thesis, also referred to as the Turner Thesis, is the argument advanced by historian Frederick Jackson Turner in 1893 that the origin of the distinctive egalitarian, democratic, aggressive, and innovative features of the American character has been the American frontier experience. He stressed the process�the moving frontier line�and the impact it had on pioneers going through the process. In the thesis, the frontiercreated freedom, by "breaking the bonds of custom, offering new experiences, and calling out new institutions and activities."
Some people are adamant that Americans' fighting spirit comes from our 'Scots-Irish blood', you know, the 'born fighting' image.
Lately, however, it seems that the American 'spirit' of resistance is curiously absent, unless you count the Tea Parties, which is rather sad.
However, we and the Canadians have taken different turns.
This page gives some information on Canada's demographics.
Here, you can see a breakdown by ethnicity.
My impression has always been that Canada has quite a lot of Scottish blood, perhaps more, in proportion to population, than America. And the statistics seem to indicate that.
Why, then, are they not the fighters and the rebels? Canada also has a fair amount of Irish-descended people. Surely all this 'fiery Celtic blood' should have made the Canadians more feisty, but overall we tend to think of Canadians as a very pacific people.
Genetics and culture don't seem to account for much of the difference between us. Or can it be that the stereotypes of the 'Celtic' peoples are not altogether true?
Whatever the reason, America and Canada diverged, culturally and politically. And it seems that the Canadian government is now even more attached to, and enamored of, multiculturalism and diversity than our benighted government.
So paradoxically, though we and Canada diverged, we are becoming similar in our 'diversity' and multicultural, polyglot populations. Isn't it strange how 'diversity' breeds uniformity?
I think it's a little futile to think about how we might have been better off had we stayed under English rule, or how we might have fared had we and Canada been merged into one political unit.
'We' wouldn't have been 'we', then, or would we? Things would have taken a different course. But we will never know, will we? Unless, of course, the globalist overlords openly proclaim the 'North American Union' that they have been engineering for decades. Then both we and Canada will be united in some polyglot mixed-multitude political unit, bearing little to no resemblance to the countries we've known and loved.
Overall, I think it was better that our Founding Fathers won our independence. Being governed by those closer to us, in a smaller-scale government (as existed at the beginning of our Republic) is preferable to being governed by a far-off government which is usually not in touch with the needs or concerns of a group of subjects across the ocean. As H.P. Lovecraft noted in the essay I quoted earlier, there was not any anti-British xenophobia involved in our secession. We were all of the same people; it was not like casting off foreign rule, as some would make it.
It is unfortunate -- no, it's tragic, that our Republic as it was originally founded could not be maintained. I say it could not be maintained, because our Founders were very explicit that the system they set up was not suitable to a rabble or a group of disparate peoples. They said that the system would not be suitable to any but a moral and religious people -- which we have not been for some time now. And most people who give any thought to these things know that a representative government depends on the people being reasonably educated and literate, informed, and responsible. Does this describe our current American electorate?
So our Republic has been gutted from the inside, by a number of factors, and it's to be determined whether it can be salvaged, or whether it is even desirable to salvage it.
It's certainly interesting to ponder over ''what if?'' -- what if we had not become independent? But we can never really know how things would have turned out.
But perhaps thinking about these things -- such as what made America the country it has become? -- will give us opportunity to think about where we are going, and how we can avoid the gross mistakes of the past.
I feel sure that if our colonial fathers could have foreseen what would become of their country, perhaps they would not even have bothered to shed their blood to create it. And that is a bitter realization.
Labels: American Character, American History, American Revolution, Canada, English Heritage
0 comment Sunday, April 27, 2014 | admin
Before this day is gone, I want to take a moment to remember Patrick Henry, who was born on this day in 1736, in Hanover Co., Virginia. Patrick Henry is known to most of us for his firebrand speeches during the pre-Revolutionary period; he is sometimes called 'the Voice of the Revolution.' During his lifetime he was a lawyer, a member of the House of Burgesses in Virginia, and later, the first governor of the state of Virginia, where he served five terms.
At the website of the Red Hill National Memorial, which commemorates Patrick Henry, this quote is prominently featured: "I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past." It's a bit of wisdom that might well be heeded by those in power in our country now, but to our shame, Patrick Henry and all the great men of his generation are neglected and their memories dishonored by the 'leaders' of our time, as they not only work assiduously but frantically to erase the America which was shaped by men like Patrick Henry.
Henry's best known speech, from March 1775, just before armed clashes broke out between the British and the colonists, contains the immortal phrase, 'give me liberty, or give me death.'' :
The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms�Let it come. I repeat, Sir, Let it come�Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!��
Another quote:
...Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the Holy cause of Liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battle for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave...''
This article by Ryan McMaken at LewRockwell.com makes the case that Henry was something of a maverick and a dissenter among his revolutionary peers; he boycotted the Constitutional Convention of 1787 because he feared the consolidation of power and the eventual growth of an American empire.
If we admit this consolidated government, it will be because we like a great splendid one. Some way or other we must be a great and mighty empire; we must have an army, a navy, and a number of things: When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, Sir, was then the primary object�But now, Sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country to a powerful and mighty empire."
Was he wrong? It seems as if his words were prophetic. But oddly, towards the end of his life, when he ran for the Virginia Legislature, he ran as a Federalist, to the dismay of his former supporters. Did he have a change of heart as to his former reservations about a strong federal government?
It's a little-known fact that Henry left a message for posterity, to be read after his death:
Near his last will, Patrick Henry left a small envelope sealed with wax. Inside was a single sheet of paper on which he had copied his Resolutions against the Stamp Act. On the back, Patrick Henry left a message that he knew could only be read after his death. It began with a short history of his Resolutions against the Stamp Act, which had "spread throughout America with astonishing Quickness." As a result, the colonies were united in their "Resistance to British Taxation," and won "the War which finally separated the two Countries and gave Independence to ours."
Whether America�s independence "will prove a Blessing or a Curse," Henry continued in his message to posterity, "will depend on the Use our people make of the Blessings which a gracious God hath bestowed on us. If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary Character, they will be miserable. Righteousness alone can exalt them as a Nation. Reader! whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy Sphere, practice Virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. P. HENRY"
Labels: American History, American Revolution, Founding Fathers