Tag Archives: history

Patrick Henry’s Speech: “Give Me Liberty, Or Give Me Death!”

January 02, 2013   Shaun Connell   No comments

patrick henry speech“MR. PRESIDENT: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely, and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate.

It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

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 of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves, and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet.

Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.

I ask, gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done, to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne.

In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free² if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending²if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those 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 battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable²and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace²but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? 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!”

Read More

Secession: 34,000+ Americans Petition For Secession

November 12, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

Could the South rise again? It feels surreal even to type those words. Over 34,000+ people have signed a petition on WhiteHouse.gov, demanding secession from the federal government. You can read and sign the petition here. The only question, of course… would it work? Or are our problems more fundamental than a “quick divorce” from the federal government?

We’ve written about secession before, mostly for fun, in our Why Did The South Secede? article. It’s a topic that horrifies many people who live in Eastern or Northern states, mostly because there simply isn’t a history or a culture sympathetic to secession or states rights in general.

Still, the idea that a secession would fix our problems is incredibly simplified. It might have worked 50 years ago, but our economy is now structured in such a way that breaking away from the union would lead to depression, economic hardships like we’ve never experienced, and who knows what else. This doesn’t mean we should never consider it — but only as a very, very last-case scenario option.

Is This Legally Possible?

Legally, whether secession is constitutional or not depends on how you interpret the constitution. Unless something radical and unexpected happens, the official position of the US federal government is that, no, it’s not legal for a state to leave the Union. They backed this up during the Civil War.

This matters, because unless Americans are willing to actually spill blood over this, it’s mostly just a theoretical discussion unless tensions get much, much higher.

Is This Economically Possible?

Quite frankly, we have to be honest that “red states” aren’t necessarily producing more than they consume. The entire US economy is based on a bubble that exists because of the dollar’s world reserve status — we simply have the ability to print more money than other people, to put it in simple terms.

This means leaving the union would pop a huge bubble that could very well lead to a depression or worse. We wouldn’t be able to fund the welfare that exists all throughout the secession-prone states, and there’s no telling what could happen because of backlash. If you want to see a real civil war, cut all entitlement spending and watch the blood flow.

This would be horrible, because huge wars essentially never lead to liberty in this manner.

Economically speaking, we have to leave the dollar for gold before secession would even be economically feasible without a large crash. Is this likely? Honestly, not very — unless we do our part and keep protesting the Federal Reserve and call for a return of the gold standard.

Is This Making Us Look Bad?

This probably largely depends on where you live. I live in Arkansas. Our flag is a confederate flag cut in two with the sides flipped. We’re not very subtle. In Arkansas law, it explicitly states that one of the stars in our flag stands for the confederacy. We’re still pretty bitter about the reconstruction.

In other states, however, this just looks weird. They have no idea why the South left the Union. They will probably watch the new “Lincoln” movie and believe the whole thing, even though it’ll likely be essentially fiction.

Should We Drop It?

I think we should talk about what happens if the US continues to get more and more divided. Federalism was our safeguard in the past. States would have the governments that their people wanted — this way California wouldn’t dictate to Texas what kind of law they had to have. It worked. Then we abandoned federalism, and every state is trying to force every other state to be “just like us”. It’s backfiring.

The division will get worse, and there are only three options: federalism, secession, or the people just hate their government. The last is most likely, the second is theoretically possible, but sticking with federalism would solve all of this without bloodshed or a “divorce”.

Read More

Is World War III Next?

September 19, 2012   Jason Hughey   No comments

Disclaimer: Absolutely nothing in this article is a prediction of things to come.  However, I am absolutely shocked by how eerily history is repeating itself in our time.  We are living through one of the most fascinating periods of civilization, and not only that, we have a blueprint from the past that has so far, been quite closely emulated in the current epoch.  Time will either prove the following words to be mere chatter…or something more.  What that “something more” may be, I cannot yet tell.

They say that those who fail to remember the past are condemned to repeat it.  One of the most tragic facts about the past four years is that we have repeated many of the mistakes that Hoover and FDR made in response to the Great Depression.  Instead of allowing the market to naturally recover and reallocate resources efficiently, Presidents Obama and Bush raced in with grandiose visions of a rescued economy.  Now, we stand poised to race off into another chaotic war in the Middle East.  As angry Muslims riot in front of our embassies all over the globe, and the U.S. joins an armada of 25 nations in support of an Israeli strike on Iran, we have to ask the question: is history repeating itself?  Will the 2010s be a repeat of the 1930s and 1940s?

Does the glory of a third World War against a mad fascist dictator rise out of the ashes of failed stimulus and a historic crash?

The 1930s and 1940s: Crash, stagnation, and World War

The United States economy danced upon the edge of a precipice in 1929.  Without realizing it, the stock market collapsed into oblivion that October, tumbling to record lows and propelling America into a Great Depression.  In response, then President Hoover decided that he had to do something to save the economy.  He signed numerous laws attempting to stimulate economic growth, set price controls, institute tariffs, and raise wages.  When any attempts at recovery were stifled by his oppressive interventions, the people turned to a new and charismatic Democrat who would restore the American economy to greatness.  Upon his election, he instituted massive government programs under the oversight of bloated bureaucracies in an effort to “put America back to work.”

Across the ocean, a fascist tyrant preached of the glory of National Socialism and the greatness of the Nazi party.  He rose to power after abusive interventionist policies by Western governments doomed his country after World War II.  Hitler was quickly become the great boogeyman of the West.

Meanwhile, back in America, the effects of the Depression lingered on for an entire decade.  To the average American, FDR’s grand promises were worthless.  Some people received benefits from his welfare programs, but they came at a great overall cost to the rest of the economy, hindering recovery at every turn.  Tariffs were thrown up against foreign nations to stimulate domestic production.  None of it worked.

And then the greatest distraction in history came.  The U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese and the nation was swept up in a patriotic fervor.  FDR became a war president who was able to nationalize production and thrive on the patriotic fervor of the era.  It was also his pleasure to round up all Japanese Americans into internment camps while the rest of America stood idly by.  Wartime production overshadowed depression, leading some economic historians to falsely claim that World War II ended the Great Depression.  In reality, the U.S. was merely breaking windows, both at home and abroad, and supporting a vast welfare/warfare state with unlimited fervor…all in the name of taking down the madman, Hitler and the Imperial Japanese.

When the dust settled, America had helped win a global conflict and there was no more depression.  But the “guns and butter” blueprint for governance was firmly implanted into the soul of American culture.  The rest of the 20th century was marked by a rising welfare state, a correlating decline in moral virtue, and a propensity toward new military adventures in foreign states.

The 2000s and 2010s: Crash, stagnation…and World War?

After a prolonged growth period of fun and games in the housing market, 2008 proved to be the year of reckoning.  The United States economy suffered a severe crash that prompted hasty legislative action by Congress.  It didn’t take long for President Bush to sign into law a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry that was designed to keep money flowing throughout the economy.  What it really did was deter the market from restoring itself to fundamentals after having been artificially propped up by cheap credit and easy money policy by the Federal Reserve.

Then, out went the Republicans and in came the charismatic champion of the people, defender of the welfare state, President Barack Obama.  Using the same economic philosophies as President Roosevelt, President Obama set up czars, partially nationalized the auto industry, signed into law a $1 trillion stimulus package, and instituted a massive federal takeover of healthcare that was jammed through Congress before anyone had a chance to read it.  Since then, the economy has experienced no real recovery, remaining stagnant and insecure.  Real unemployment remains at around 15% while over 50% of college graduates cannot find a job.  Many people have literally stopped looking for a job and left the labor force completely.

Furthermore, President Obama has continued the legacy of his predecessor, George W. Bush, by eroding civil liberties and increasing the federal government’s power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens.  National security documents have identified individuals who buy gold, hold to religious fundamentalism, and have strongly negative views about government as possible terrorists.  The police state has grown to the point where it can literally peer at our naked bodies and grope our private parts in the name of “keeping us safe.”

In the midst of all of this, a foreign enemy has allegedly reared its head on the horizon.  After numerous Western interventions in Middle East affairs (and particularly Iranian regimes), Iran’s Islamo-fascist dictator, Ahmadinejad, has become the West’s big boogeyman.  Harsh economic sanctions have been erected and the rhetoric has grown ever more bellicose as the world prepares for conflict.  The United States, along with 24 other nations, is building up an armada in the Persian Gulf to support an Israeli preemptive strike against Iran.  This occurs while the United States presses charges against China, threatening trade relations and aggravating a powerhouse in Asia.  To the north of Iran, there’s no telling what Russia thinks or how it would react to a pre-emptive strike on its oil-rich southern neighbor.

Oh yeah, and the whole Muslim world is protesting at embassies all over the globe:

 

 

 

 

 

In the meantime, the U.S. economy limps on with no real recovery in sight, propped up by artificial stimulus, cheap money, and government programs.

What Will Happen Next?

At this point, the pattern becomes incomplete because we cannot predict the future.  War has not yet begun and hopefully it will never come.  Perhaps the economy may return to its fundamentals and achieve real recovery in the coming years, either through a change of heart by Washington politicians or something else.

Also, there are many technical differences between now and the late 1930s.  It’s quite possible to demonstrate how certain things are more different now than they were back then.

But, the underlying questions–and the general pattern of historical repetition–remain.  Will we go to war and will the rest of the world join in?  Will another major war refocus our citizens on a global conflict and allow for wartime mobilization, nationalization, and mass detainment of certain groups of citizens?  Will we break enough windows to spur massive GDP growth in order to create the illusion of economic recovery under a centralized economy?   And in the end, will we be even further entrenched in the doomed policies of overburdened welfare and constant warfare?

Time will tell if history repeats itself.  Thus far, we have been condemned to repeat it.

Read More

Why Did the South Secede?

February 02, 2012   Shaun Connell   No comments

why did the south secede History is important. Through it we can understand our future, understand politics, understand economics, and understand almost everything a little better. And that’s why having a proper understanding of historical events is important — having a warped view of history gives us a warped view of the present.

Of all of the misunderstood events in history, the American Civil War is probably the worst of the lot. Most students believe that the South was fighting to keep all of the slaves in bondage, while the benevolent Yankees were fighting to free the slaves in captivity — nothing could be further from the truth.

History books are written by the victors. This simple-yet-powerful sentence explains why the “winners” of every war rarely are seen as the “bad guys” for quite some time after the war.

The winners get to rewrite the story to cast themselves as heroes whether they deserve it or not, and that story is going to be a powerful one. My intellectual hero — Richard Maybury — explained it in simple terms:

‎”In our government-controlled schools we are taught that Lincoln was our greatest president because his war ended slavery and saved the Union. As usual, the other side of the story – the side that reflects poorly on the government – somehow gets lost.”

Let’s take a look at the real story — what Lincoln really said — and what the real reasons were for the South deciding to secede.

Freedom vs. Slavery?

The modern narrative that most people are taught is that the North wanted to abolish slavery and the South wanted to keep it in tact. This is demonstrated in movies, magazines, books, and perpetually taught in elementary schools, high schools, and college. It’s also dead wrong.

Abraham Lincoln flat out rejected it, saying in his first inaugural address:

‎”I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

Later in his presidency, Lincoln wrote the following:

“If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.”

The motivation of Lincoln was consolidating political power — not freeing the slaves. The notion that he was trying to free the slaves from the get-go is a complete fabrication. Lincoln also was a racist, even though he thought slavery was wrong, and explained so in a debate with Douglas before he was president:

“I am not now, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social or political equality of the white and black races. I am not now nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor of intermarriages with white people. There is a physical difference between the white and the black races which will forever forbid the two races living together on social or political equality. There must be a position of superior and inferior, and I am in favor of assigning the superior position to the white man.”

The notion of Lincoln being a benevolent color-blind freer of slaves is simply not true. It’s a fantasy cooked up by the men who won the war. After all, if you’re telling your grandkids that you waged a war that killed 600,000 men, that destroyed the city of Atlanta, and millions of people were wounded, it doesn’t sound good to say “we did it for political power”.

If the above wasn’t enough, Lincoln also made it clear that the black regiments in the military were to be used as cannon fodder. He used them like animals — to be killed before his precious white troops. He even explained such in a letter during the war in 1863:

“I thought that in your struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union.”

The Civil War was not over freeing the slaves. The victor writes the history books.

Why the South Really Seceded:

So what were the real reasons the South seceded? The following should be helpful to understand:

  • Anti-South Party. The GOP was anti-southern. For the first time in the nation’s history, a political party was based on location rather than just different views. The south was demonized. That meant that their future of political influence was questioned because they had slaves. The impacts here would be much, much more than just slavery, as explained above “vote yourself a farm, vote yourself a tariff”.
  • Anti-South Tariffs. In the 1830s, the US government passed tariff essentially forcing the South to buy products from the North. Meanwhile, the South had to compete against the global market. The tariff laws were written in such a way as to force the South to enrich the North. This was feared to get worse and worse, especially since Lincoln — a member of the new “anti-South” party — was elected.
  • No Nullification. Nullification and other “state sovereignty” rights were essentially run down, ignored, or made impossible — this means the original “government” the South was agreeing to essentially didn’t exist. The “strong central government” camp had become much more powerful than the state-sovereignty camp, at least in DC.
  • Capping Southern Influence. Refusing new slave states to be created was essentially a political move that destroyed Southern influence — southern influences were suddenly capped, while northern influences could continue to grow and get more and more of an influence in congress. The North was soon to completely overpower the North in the federal government, leaving the South in a position where they were essentially forced to do whatever the North wanted.
  • Structure of Government. The North repeatedly was trying to change the constitution to make the senate elected by popular vote rather than state legislatures. They succeeded after the war. This was a huge change in the structure of government — the state governments are now not represented by the federal government. This was an attack on states across the board. The South wanted state sovereignty, and the North wanted the federal government to more able to regulate the internal affairs of the states — and not just in slavery.
  • No Need for the North. The South rightly believed that there simply wasn’t a reason for the South to need the North. Since they were being politically isolated and economically exploited, they believed there was nothing keeping them to stay in the North. They also believed that leaving the Union at any time was their contractual right.

Was slavery wrong? Absolutely. It was wrong. But the war wasn’t over freeing those already enslaved. Lincoln said this. If the South stayed in the Union, there’s a good chance that slavery would have existed for decades longer, because there was no constitutional way for the North to abolish slavery without the South’s consent — and they weren’t going to do that.

The Civil War wasn’t over “freeing the slaves”. It was about politics and regional influence — the North and South were at odds, and the South believed it was better off alone. Were they right? There’s no telling.

Slavery was a great crime against millions of people. It was wrong on a fundamental way. It was inhumane, evil, and disgusting. But “ending slavery” simply wasn’t what the war was about.

History is written by the victor, and nothing could be more clear than this being exactly an example of that. Other wars and events are also “told” in a lopsided manner in the textbooks. World War I, World War II, the Great Depression — many of these stories usually ignore basic historical facts, and are told in such a way as to glorify our government. When reading about history, always remember that the real story might be very different than the story in the book.

Read More

  • Get The Newsletter:

    The media is trying to hide the truth, but now you can bypass them. Get our newsletter now:


Copyright Capitalism Institute, 2011-present.