The Continental Congress declares colonial shipping ports open to all traffic except the British. The Congress had already authorized privateer raids on British ships and also advised disarming all Americans loyal to England.
That last bit would make for some interesting discussion. Feel free.
7 comments:
Sorry to respectfully disagree with you here David, but this does not make for interesting discussion for one simple reason:
To be blunt (Is there any other way?), disarming them makes it a whole world easier to burn them out and shoot them down.
End of story.
My word, they couldn't have meant privateers. Privateers were armed with small arms and CANNON. As every modern pragmatist will tell you that is just too extreme and would never meet with approval.
I disagree with you Paul, I think it very interesting that our fledging nation almost immediately set about denying rights, or attempting to deny rights, to those they wished to destroy.
It is a lesson not lost on them in cooler times when the constitution was later written. The realization that abuse of power was and is a governmental characteristic, attendant to all governments prevailed, upon them to provide guarantees against such governmental actions in our most sacrosanct founding document.
That is why the founders were such geniuses. They did not exempt themselves from the strictures they would put against their former king.
Too many of our modern legislators, intellectuals,and social leaders have such a paucity of character and knowledge as to not be able to fathom the fact of it, let alone the reason and logic behind it.
And too many of our pragmatists refuse to recognize the reality of the debilitating effect of power on the human character.
All these latter operate on the Principle of Arrogance. Which states "I am superior, therefore what would be vice in others is virtue in me. As I am superior there are no men better outfitted by character and nature, than myself, to determine how other men should live and under what conditions. If I were to be flawed the point would be moot in any discussion because it would obviously mean that all men suffered the same deficiencies and therefore my hubris in attempting to dominate their lives is still justified."
Paul, I think it would a very interesting discussion. Though pointless, as these people cannot be reached through reason or principle. They can only be reached through the extraction of personal cost. Some few would see the error of their ways, but most would believe that their point was proven for them by the rabble who held them to account, or by their own kind who achieved power and excluded them. Those would never admit that the defects in their own characters was the cause of their difficulties. It an emotional thing with them.
SA,
My point was not to stifle discussion, rather it was to put the right and proper face on war and what it is. In war we deny the most fundamental and basic human right of all — the right to life, as a normal everyday course of events. When we reach (or degrade, depending upon your point of view) to that point, the rights of speech, press, assembly, and keeping and bearing arms, against unlawful search and seizure are all gone as the most basic right (life) is only worth whatsoever your allegiance is.
In this case, allegiance to the crown was, to the Continental Congress, a legitimate reason to deprive certain individuals of their natural right to defend themselves and their property. The overriding reason was that weapons kept for personal defense could also be used to aid the crown. Not being idiots, the CC determined that a sound recommendation to confiscate arms was in order. Then, if the need so arose, the Tories could be either run out, or destroyed in place without much (if any) resistance.
This ought to cause one to consider what is going on today . . .
Now, I know we like to think well of the Founders. I certainly enjoy the wisdom they had, and freely acknowledge that they understood more about the nature of man than most Bible-believers today. However, they were not saints (in the Catholic sense) or angels, and had done some things that we today would shudder at. It was not uncommon in Colonial America for individuals and families to be persecuted and deprived of their property for refusal to support the state church, as in Virginia where Patrick Henry routinely defended Baptists jailed for refusing to support the Anglican Church, or for preaching on the street. Dissenters would have their arms seized, and find themselves banished to the wilderness for refusing to attend Puritan services. Quakers were routinely persecuted.
The concept of rights enjoyed by all was still not attained even when the Constitution was ratified into law as slavery was still in existence and would continue as a part of society for approximately 80 more years. It was and is unfortunate, but that is the way of man.
What the Continental Congress did is no real surprise to me as that is an integral part of war and what war is. The problem lies in modern America where we fail to accept the nature of man and all that entails.
As for the Founders, I appreciate them greatly. They don’t have to be perfect for me to appreciate them and thank them for understanding a basic Biblical principle. I leave you with an excerpt from a outline on Baptist persecution. Please note the second paragraph and who it is that makes the plea.
The year is 1774. American colonists are strongly protesting British invasions of their rights, and in September the first Continental Congress is convened as a response British encroachments. Also in 1774, Northampton, Massachusetts, 18 Baptists are sitting in jail. Their crime? Refusing to pay taxes for the support of the town’s Congregational minister.
Also in 1774, down South in Virginia, James Madison declared, "That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some. . . . There are at this time in the adjacent county not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox. . . . So I must beg you to . . . pray for liberty of conscience for all."
By the way, all our liberties (including RKBA) are tied to liberty of the conscience.
BTW, all the interesting discussion to this point has been ancillary to the discussion of the CC's recommendation to seize the arms of Tories.
The reason is as I stated, which is not very pretty (although the necessity of it is well understood).
The Founders understood natural rights, but they were not stupid.
We are in agreement on all you have posited in your last two comments.
That is why I believe our founders were wise beyond their personal proclivities.
The constitution as written, with the exception of the slavery issue addressed therein, was as near a perfect treatise on liberty and its maintenance as any ever writ by man.
In spite of the fact that many of those men of that era willingly and sometimes eagerly violated the precepts of the document in favor of their own ambitions, religious beliefs, or political beliefs, they supplied the near perfect mechanism proscribing such actions by governmental force. The second amendment being the relief of last resort, should the written not be observed.
Do you see how astronomically astounding such a feat was, to be accomplished by such flawed men?
Their totality surpassed the sum of their parts. No easy or commonplace occurrence that.
In fact, it is such a rare thing that one could almost see the hand of divinity in it.
I was only disagreeing with your assessment of its interest as a topic of discussion. As to war, you are correct, the object is to win. No Marquis of Queensbury there.
SA,
Well taken.
The creation of the US of A, was indeed of God. The Founders were interesting individuals that came out of a crucible that only rarely exists in history.
SA, one of these days, Lord willing, we are going to have a face-to-face, sit-down discussion. It ought to be interesting and lively.
That would be nice. We both live in western Ar. still the depth of the state apart, though.
Post a Comment