Democracy – The God That Failed: How Can We Exit the Current Trajectory?

Here is the path .. from colony, toward an experiment in republican representation hijacked by a centralizing constitution that paved the way towards democracy and possibly towards socialism and communism .. and how can you NOT think about communism when we hear about the crackdown on freedom of speech by the Government-Entertainment complex … mainstream media?

As our government continues to suck the economic life out of its people (the VERY thing the South felt from 1830s to 1860) you have to wonder what is next?

“Every State must begin territorially small. That makes it easy for productive people to run away to escape its taxation and legislation. Obviously, a State does not like to see its productive people run away and tries to capture them by expanding its territory. The more productive people the State controls, the better off it will be. In this expansionist desire, it runs into opposition by other States. There can be only one monopolist of ultimate decision-making in any given territory. That is, the competition between different States is eliminative. Either A wins and controls the territory, or B. Who wins? At least in the long run, that State will win — and take over another’s territory or establish hegemony over it and force it to pay tribute — that can parasitically draw on a comparatively more productive economy. That is, other things being the same, internally more “liberal” States, i.e., States with comparatively low taxes and little legislative regulation, will win over less “liberal,” i.e., more oppressive, States and expand their territory or their range of hegemonic control. There is only one important element missing still in this reconstruction of the tendency toward imperialism and political centralization: money. As a territorial monopolist of legislation, every State, whether monarchic or democratic, immediately recognized the immense potential for its own enrichment — far beyond anything offered by taxation — provided by the monopolistic control of money. By appointing itself as the sole producer of money, the State could increase and inflate the money supply through currency depreciation: by producing an increasingly cheaper and ultimately “worthless” money, such as paper money, that could be produced at virtually zero cost, and thus enabled the State to “buy” real, non-monetary goods at no cost to itself. But in an environment of multiple, competing states, paper monies and currency areas, limitations to this policy of “expropriation through inflation” come into play. If one State inflates more than another, its money tends to depreciate in the currency market relative to other monies, and people react to these changes in selling the more inflationary money and buying the less inflationary one. “Better” money would tend to outcompete “worse” money. This can be prevented only if the inflationary policies of all states are coordinated and an inflation cartel is established. But any such cartel would be unstable. Internal and external economic pressures would tend to burst it. For the cartel to be stable a dominant enforcer is required — which leads back to the subject of imperialism and empire building. Because a militarily dominant State, a hegemon, can and will use its position to institute and enforce a policy of coordinated inflation and of monetary imperialism. It will order its vassal States to inflate along with its own inflation. It will further pressure them to accept its own currency as their reserve currency, and ultimately, to replace all other, competing currencies by a single paper money, used worldwide and controlled by itself, so as to expand its exploitative power over other territories and ultimately the entire globe even without further war and conquest. But — and with that I am slowly approaching the end of my tale of moral and economic folly and decay and have already touched upon a possible way out — imperialism and empire building also bears the seeds of its own destruction. The closer a State comes to the ultimate goal of world domination and one-world government and paper money, the less reason there is to maintain its internal liberalism and do instead what all States are inclined to do anyway, i.e., to crack down and increase their exploitation of whatever productive people are still left. Consequently, with no additional tributaries left and domestic productivity stagnating or falling, the empire’s internal policies of bread and circuses and its foreign policies of war and domination can no longer be maintained. Economic crisis hits, and an impending economic meltdown will stimulate decentralizing tendencies, separatist and secessionist movements, and lead to the breakup of empire. What, then, is the moral of my story? I have tried to make the current world intelligible, to reconstruct it as the predictable result of a series of successive and cumulative moral and economic errors. We all know the results. The price of justice has risen astronomically. The tax load imposed on property owners and producers makes the burden imposed on slaves and serfs appear moderate in comparison. As well, government debt has risen to breathtaking heights. Everywhere, democratic states are on the verge of bankruptcy. At the same time, the quality of law has steadily deteriorated to the point where the idea of law as a body of universal and immutable principles of justice has disappeared from public opinion and consciousness and been replaced by the idea of law as legislation. Every detail of private life, property, trade, and contract is regulated by increasingly higher mountains of paper laws. In the name of social, public, or national security, democratic caretakers “protect” us from global warming and cooling, the extinction of animals and plants and the depletion of natural resources, from husbands and wives, parents and employers, poverty, disease, disaster, ignorance, prejudice, racism, sexism, homophobia and countless other public “enemies” and “dangers.” Yet the only task government was ever supposed to assume — of protecting our life and property — it does not perform. To the contrary, the higher the state expenditures on social, public, and national security have risen, the more private property rights have been eroded, the more property has been expropriated, confiscated, destroyed, and depreciated, and the more have people been deprived of the very foundation of all protection: of personal independence, economic strength, and private wealth. The more paper laws have been produced, the more legal uncertainty and moral hazard has been created, and lawlessness has displaced law and order. And while we have become ever more dependent, helpless, impoverished, threatened and insecure, the ruling elite of politicians and plutocrats has become increasingly richer, more corrupt, dangerously armed, and arrogant. Likewise, we know about the international scene. The once-upon-a-time comparatively liberal USA, through a seemingly endless series of wars — wars supposed to make the world safe for democracy but in reality wars for US and its plutocrats’ world-domination — has risen to the rank of the world’s foremost empire and global hegemon, meddling in the domestic affairs and superimposing its rule on countless other countries and their local power elites and populations. Moreover, as the world’s dominant empire, the US has also established its currency, the US-dollar as the leading international reserve currency. And with the dollar used as reserve currency by foreign central (government) banks, the US can run a permanent “deficit without tears.” That is, the US must not pay for its steady excesses of imports over exports, as it is normal between “equal” partners, in having to ship increasingly more exports abroad (exports paying for imports!). Rather: Instead of using their export earnings to buy American goods for domestic consumption, foreign governments and their central banks, as a sign of their vassal status vis-à-vis a dominant US, use their paper dollar reserves to buy up US government bonds to help Americans consume beyond their means at the expense of foreign populations. What I have tried to show here is why all of this is not a historical accident, but something that was predictable. Not in all details, of course, but as far as the general pattern of development is concerned. That the ultimate error committed, leading to these deplorable results, was the establishment of a territorial monopoly of ultimate decision making, i.e., a State, and hence, that the entire history we are told and taught in schools and standard textbooks, which presents democracy as the crowning achievement of human civilization, is just about the opposite of the truth. The final question, then, is “Can we rectify this error and go back to a natural aristocratic social order?” ..”

Can we? IMHO, only when the elite find no more use of the common people will we be free to understand that we each come into this world equipped (nature) to be who we can be .. and the most honorable among us are the only ones that can judge and protect without becoming a parasite 🙂

Democracy – The God That Failed: Teaser Quotes

[Written December 2017]

Having picked up (not literally, just looked at my dozens of Kindle books and decided which one of my partially completed books I would like to read this beautiful December morning) this book I discovered I had already highlighted some great quotes in the middle of this thirteen chapter book.

After reading a page .. and then another page, and another page and sharing with a couple of my sons I finally came to the conclusion that I MUST eventually review this book as it does render much insight into the broken nature of our “democracy” (a word that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson rightfully hated because it was so destructive to a people/nation/country).

So .. in no particular order .. here are some quotes from Hans that sparked my interest (followed by a couple images of quotes from Franklin and Jefferson and even one from Marx that drive this point home) :

“… Thus, privilege and legal discrimination — and the distinction between rulers and subjects — do not disappear under democracy. To the contrary. Rather than being restricted to princes and nobles, under democracy, privileges come into the reach of everyone: Everyone can participate in theft and live off stolen loot if only he becomes a public official. Likewise, democratically elected parliaments are, just like any absolute or constitutional king, not bound by any superior, natural law, i.e., by law not of their own making (such as and including so-called constitutional law), but they can legislate, i.e., they can make and change laws. Only: While a king legislates in his own favor, under democracy everyone is free to promote and try to put into effect legislation in his own favor, provided only that he finds entry into parliament or government…”

“Theoretically speaking, the transition from monarchy to democracy involves no more (or less) than the replacement of a permanent, hereditary monopoly “owner” — the king — by temporary and interchangeable “caretakers” — by presidents, prime ministers, and members of parliament. Both, kings and presidents, will produce “bads,” i.e., they tax and they legislate. Yet a king, because he “owns” the monopoly and may sell and bequeath his realm to a successor of his choosing, his heir, will care about the repercussions of his actions on capital values. As the owner of the capital stock on “his” territory, the king will be comparatively future-oriented. In order to preserve or enhance the value of his property, his exploitation will be comparatively moderate and calculating. In contrast, a temporary and interchangeable democratic caretaker does not own the country, but as long as he is in office he is permitted to use it to his own advantage. He owns its current use but not its capital stock. This does not eliminate exploitation. Instead, it makes exploitation shortsighted, present-oriented, and uncalculating, i.e., carried out with no or little regard for the value of the capital stock. In short, it promotes capital consumption.”

“In sharp contrast, the selection of state rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top. Presidents and prime ministers come into their position not owing to their status as natural aristocrats, as feudal kings once did, i.e., based on the recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, wisdom and superior judgment and taste, but as a result of their capacity as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of state government.”

This last quote shows how easy it is for the SWAMP to grow .. the fact is, this swamp started growing even before the thirteen sovereign colonies emerged from the American Revolution / secession from the British Empire in 1783 when the Treaty of Paris was signed.

In this next rather large clip is the reason a society’s character changes as a natural result of democracies:

“Worse: Under democracy the social character and personality structure of the entire population will be changed systematically. All of society will be thoroughly politicized. During the monarchical age, the ancient aristocratic order had still remained somewhat intact. Only the king and, indirectly, the members of his (exclusive) court could enrich themselves — by means of taxation and legislation — at other people’s and their properties expense. Everyone else had to stand on his own feet, so to say, and owed his position in society, his wealth and his income, to some sort of value-productive efforts. Under democracy, the incentive structure is systematically changed. Egalitarian sentiments and envy are given free reign. Everyone, not just the king, is now allowed to participate in the exploitation — via legislation or taxation — of everyone else. Everyone is free to express any confiscatory demands whatsoever. Nothing, no demand, is off limits. In Bastiat’s words, under democracy the State becomes the great fiction by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else. Every person and his personal property come within reach of and are up for grabs by everyone else. Under a one-man-one-vote regime, then, a relentless machinery of wealth and income redistribution is set in motion. It must be expected that majorities of have-nots will constantly try to enrich themselves at the expense of minorities of haves. This is not to say that there will be only one class of haves and one class of have-nots, the rich and the poor, and that the redistribution — via taxation and legislation — will occur uniformly from the rich onto the poor. To the contrary. While the redistribution from rich to poor will always play a prominent role and is indeed a permanent feature and mainstay of democracy, it would be naïve to assume that it will be the sole or even the predominant form of redistribution. After all, the rich and the poor are usually rich or poor for a reason. The rich are characteristically bright and industrious, and the poor typically dull, lazy or both. It is not very likely that dullards, even if they make up a majority, will systematically outsmart and enrich themselves at the expense of a minority of bright and energetic individuals. Rather, most redistribution will take place within the group of the non-poor, and it will actually be frequently the better off who succeed in having themselves subsidized by the poor. (Just think of “free” university education, whereby the working class, whose children rarely attend universities, pay for the education of middle-class children!) Indeed, many competing parties and coalitions will try to gain at the expense of others. In addition, there will be a variety of changing criteria defining what it is that makes a person a have (deserving to be looted) and another a have-not (deserving to receive the loot) — and it will be the intellectuals who play a major role in defining and promoting these criteria (making sure, of course, that they themselves will always be classified as have-nots in need of ever more loot). As well, individuals can be members of a multitude of groups of haves or have-nots, losing on account of one characteristic and gaining on account of another, with some individuals ending up net-losers and others net-winners of redistribution. In any case, however, since it is invariably something valuable, something “good” that is being redistributed — property and income — of which the haves supposedly have too much and the have-nots too little, any redistribution implies that the incentive to beget, have, or produce something of value — something “good” — is systematically reduced and, mutatis mutandis, the incentive of not getting, having, or producing anything valuable — of not being or not having anything “good” — but relying instead on and living off redistributed income and wealth is systematically increased. In short, the proportion of good people and good, value-productive activities is reduced and the proportion of bad or not-so-good people and of unproductive habits, character traits, and types of conduct will increase, with the overall result of impoverishing society and making life increasingly unpleasant. While it is impossible to predict the exact outcome of the permanent democratic struggle of all against all, except to say that it will lead to ever higher taxes, to a never ending flood of legislation and thus increased legal uncertainty, and consequently to an increase in the rate of social time-preference, i.e., increased short-term orientation (an “infantilization” of society), one outcome of this struggle, one result of democracy can be safely predicted, however. Democracy produces and brings about a new power elite or ruling class. Presidents, prime ministers, and the leaders of parliament and political parties are part of this power elite, and I have already talked about them as essentially amoral demagogues. But it would be naïve to assume that they are the most powerful and influential people of all. They are more frequently only the agents and delegates — those doing the bidding — of other people standing on the sidelines and out of public view. The true power elite, which determines and controls who will make it as president, prime minister, party leader, etc., are the plutocrats. The plutocrats, as defined by the great but largely forgotten American sociologist William Graham Sumner, are not simply the super-rich — the big bankers and the captains of big business and industry. Rather, the plutocrats are only a subclass of the super rich. They are those super rich big bankers and businessmen, who have realized the enormous potential of the State as an institution that can tax and legislate for their own even greater future enrichment and who, based on this insight, have decided to throw themselves into politics. They realize that the State can make you far richer than you already are: whether in subsidizing you, in awarding you with state contracts, or in passing laws that protect you from unwelcome competition or competitors, and they decide to use their riches to capture the State and use politics as a means to the end of their own further enrichment (rather than becoming richer solely by economic means, i.e., in better serving voluntarily paying customers of one’s products). They do not have to get involved in politics themselves. They have more important and lucrative things to do than wasting their time with everyday politics. But they have the cash and the position to “buy” the typically far less affluent professional politicians, either directly in paying them bribes or indirectly, by agreeing to employ them later on, after their stint in professional politics, as highly paid managers, consultants, or lobbyists, and so manage to decisively influence and determine the course of politics in their own favor. They, the plutocrats, will become the ultimate winners in the constant income and wealth redistribution struggle that is democracy. And in between them (the real power elite staying outside the limelight), and all those whose income (and wealth) depends solely or largely on the State and its taxing power (the employees of the always growing state apparatus and all recipients of transfer payments, its “welfare clients”), the productive middle class gets increasingly squeezed dry.”

Finally, here is another clip that shows how total and constant war becomes natural with democracies:

“Not least, democracy has also a profound effect on the conduct of war. I already explained that kings, because they can externalize the cost of their own aggression onto others (via taxes) tend to be more than ‘normally’ aggressive and war-like. However, a king’s motive for war is typically an ownership-inheritance dispute brought on by a complex network of inter-dynastic marriages and the irregular but always recurring extinction of certain dynasties. As violent inheritance disputes, monarchical wars are characterized by limited territorial objectives. They are not ideologically motivated quarrels but disputes over tangible properties. Moreover, as inter-dynastic property disputes, the public considers war essentially the king’s private affair to be paid for by himself and as insufficient reason for any further tax increase. Further, as private conflicts between different ruling families the public expects, and the kings feel compelled, to recognize a clear distinction between combatants and non-combatants and to target their war efforts specifically and exclusively against each other and their respective personal properties. Democracy radically transforms the limited wars of kings into total wars. In blurring the distinction between the rulers and the ruled, democracy strengthens the identification of the public with the State. Once the State is owned by all, as democrats deceivingly propagate, then it is only fair that everyone should fight for their State and all economic resources of the country be mobilized for the State in its wars. And since public officials in charge of a democratic state cannot and do not claim to personally “own” foreign territory (as a king can do), the motive for war instead becomes an ideological one — national glory, democracy, liberty, civilization, humanity. The objectives are intangible and elusive: the victory of ideas, and the unconditional surrender and ideological conversion of the losers (which, because one can never be sure about the sincerity of the conversion, may require the mass murder of civilians). As well, the distinction between combatants and non-combatants becomes fuzzy and ultimately disappears under democracy, and mass war involvement — the draft and popular war rallies — as well as “collateral damage” become part of war strategy. These tendencies will be still further strengthened by the rise of the new ruling elite of plutocrats. For one, the plutocrats will quickly realize the enormous profits to be made by arming the State, by producing the very weapons and equipment used in war, and in being awarded most generous tax-funded cost-plus contracts to do so. A military-industrial complex will be built up. And second, unlike most people who have merely local or domestic interests, the super-rich plutocrats have financial interests also in foreign places, potentially all around the globe, and in order to promote, protect, and enforce these foreign interests it is only natural for them to use the military power of their own State also to interfere, meddle, or intervene in foreign affairs on their behalf. A business deal in foreign countries may have turned sour or a concession or license may be won there — almost everything can be used as a reason to pressure one’s own State to come to their rescue and intervene outside of its own territory. Indeed, even if this intervention requires that a foreign country be destroyed, this can be a boon for them, provided only they receive the contract to rebuild the country that their weapons had before destroyed. Finally, the tendency already set in motion with the war of kings of leading to increased political centralization, toward the building of empire, is continued and accelerated through democratic war.”

Democracy – The God That Failed

Democracy – The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy and Natural Order (Perspectives on Democratic Practice) – by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

When a book commands $40 for paperback and $440 for hardcover .. you know it is a good one.

Here is a 10 minute YouTube that allows you to listen to Hans describe this book and his intent for writing it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUzkZaD1xDs .. this is fascinating!

I plan to share some more quotes and such .. a teaser for y’all to think about buying this book (or searching online for a PDF or something). This is rich!

Here is the Amazon descriptor for this book:

“The core of this book is a systematic treatment of the historic transformation of the West from monarchy to democracy. Revisionist in nature, it reaches the conclusion that monarchy is a lesser evil than democracy, but outlines deficiencies in both. Its methodology is axiomatic-deductive, allowing the writer to derive economic and sociological theorems, and then apply them to interpret historical events.

A compelling chapter on time preference describes the progress of civilization as lowering time preferences as capital structure is built, and explains how the interaction between people can lower time all around, with interesting parallels to the Ricardian Law of Association. By focusing on this transformation, the author is able to interpret many historical phenomena, such as rising levels of crime, degeneration of standards of conduct and morality, and the growth of the mega-state. In underscoring the deficiencies of both monarchy and democracy, the author demonstrates how these systems are both inferior to a natural order based on private-property.

Hoppe deconstructs the classical liberal belief in the possibility of limited government and calls for an alignment of conservatism and libertarianism as natural allies with common goals. He defends the proper role of the production of defense as undertaken by insurance companies on a free market, and describes the emergence of private law among competing insurers.

Having established a natural order as superior on utilitarian grounds, the author goes on to assess the prospects for achieving a natural order. Informed by his analysis of the deficiencies of social democracy, and armed with the social theory of legitimation, he forsees secession as the likely future of the US and Europe, resulting in a multitude of region and city-states. This book complements the author’s previous work defending the ethics of private property and natural order. Democracy – The God that Failed will be of interest to scholars and students of history, political economy, and political philosophy.”

 

What Does a Man Do When His Life, Property and Neighbors are Threatened?

Weapons are the tools of fear. A decent man will avoid them except in the direst necessity and, if compelled, will use them only with the greatest restraint. Peace is his highest value. If peace has been shattered, how can he be content? His enemies are not demons, but human beings like himself. He doesn’t wish them personal harm. Nor does he rejoice in victory. How could he rejoice in victory and delight in the slaughter of men? He enters a battle gravely, With sorrow and with great compassion, As if were attending a funeral.

Lao Tzu – ‘The Tao Te Ching’

In Francis Marion’s colony of South Carolina, there was little action in the rebellion against the British Empire until 1780. As noted in John Oller’s book ‘The Swamp Fox – How Francis Marion Saved the American Revolution‘:

Ever since the shots were fired at Lexington and Concord in 1775, the South had been mostly untouched by the conflict, which was famously fought at places such as Bunker Hill, Fort Ticonderoga, Trenton, and Brandywine. But by 1779 the war in the North had reached a stalemate, with the British firmly in control of New York City under Sir Henry Clinton, and the Americans, led by George Washington, camped thirty miles away in Morristown, New Jersey, desperately hoping for help from a French navy anchored in the West Indies. The last significant engagement in the North had been in June 1778 at Monmouth Courthouse, where Washington and his most dependable officer, Nathanael Greene, battled Clinton and his lieutenant general, Charles Cornwallis, to a draw. But while the Americans remained hard-pressed, Britain had grown increasingly weary of war. Its coffers nearly bankrupt and its military stretched thin by an expanded conflict with France and Spain, Parliament agreed to finance one final effort to end the American rebellion.

George Washington had remained convinced that victory could only be had if the Continental forces could displace the British from New York harbor. This is something he remained fixated on for several years until the French did send their navy, not to New York harbor but to Yorktown, Virginia in the fall of 1782.

With the stalemate in the northern colonies, the focus shifted to the southern American colonies. The British Empire’s “Southern Strategy” was agreed on by King George, Lord Germain and by General Sir Henry Clinton who was initially in New York harbor. The strategy had both logic and economy in mind to address the concerns for a lingering war in this part of the empire when there were plenty of other areas around the world that the British were spending resources on. The British were convinced that there were a majority of Loyalists in the southern colonies that would aid them at the very least at occupying and retaining them in their empire.

The British would begin by occupying the colony of Georgia where revolutionary sentiment was weakest and aim to establish a foothold there. From that most southern location the thought was to gain more and more American loyalists to be in the fight (British reasoning was that it was cheaper and spared British lives to “Americanize” the war) as they rolled up South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and beyond .. or so they thought.

However, blowback is real.

While the British had an easy time with Savannah, Georgia in December 1778 and eventually made Charleston capitulate in May 12th 1780, there were actions and words from the British that eventually had unintended consequences.

Initially the British believed their plan was working as there was a wave of brown-nosers that gave Clinton and the British Admiral a congratulatory address thanking them in restoring the South Carolina politically to Great Britain. So confident was Clinton by June 4, 1780 that he proclaimed that the South Carolina people are “either prisoners or in-arms with us” .. so Clinton made plans to return to New York harbor while giving Cornwallis cleanup duty. Clinton had previously stipulated that so long as any civilian Whigs agreed to a parole, the British would grant them a full pardon and leave them in peace in their homes and property for the duration of the war. However, before Sir Henry Clinton left he announced on June 3, 1780 that prior paroles were null and void and those previously on parole would have their rights restored AND were expected to actively assist the British government. Basically, anyone not signing an oath of allegiance to the British Empire by June 20th 1780 would be considered enemies of the king.

Neutrality was no longer an option, basically you are either with us or against us. With British raiders already burning houses, pillaging property, etc., the countryside was awakened and a hornet’s nest of rebel sentiment was born.

Blowback caused a very nasty civil war in the independent colony of South Carolina where the vocal leaders of the rebellion were arrested and shipped to St. Augustine, Florida. Governor John Rutledge’s had left for exile in North Carolina so basically the civil government in South Carolina ceased to exist.  So between the colony’s Whigs, Tories (Loyalists) and even Indians, the Carolina back-country grudge scars were reopened. Religious affiliations were also splitting communities with Presbyterian and Baptist dividing with Anglican (which was a tax-supported entity). However, these allegiances were not fixed affiliations for if a Whig steals your horse, you might consider becoming a Tory. There was a cycle of retribution and revenge that would take its toll for the whole war from 1775 to 1782.

It is in this moment in time that Francis Marion, healing from that ankle injury that happened in Charleston months before, would emerge as a grass-roots leader, not as a Continental officer, but as a freedom fighter. The Swamp Fox was in principle a visionary who knew the long-term effects of blowback well. The tenor of Francis Marion’s rules of engagement had in mind a future more united society in South Carolina if the war against the empire could be won.

Before we proceed to see when Francis Marion arrives on the scene in the summer of 1780, I will instead set the stage yet again for how divided the colony of South Carolina was by then. This was not something that happened suddenly in 1775 but was set in the decades that proceeded the American Revolution that involved the lawless Carolina back-country and groups known as the Regulators and the Moderators, the ‘Blue’ and ‘Red’ sides of the day.

QUESTION(s):

What would happen in today’s regions in the United States as rival factions are pitted against each other? Who might emerge that would fight for liberty, freedom and rights of ALL involved? How could grass-roots efforts effectively turn the tide from an occupation force of an empire?

Finally, do we have hidden in our country the type of man like Francis Marion who would selflessly emerge onto the scene and fight for self, family and friends even when these family members and friends be on either side of this internal, societal conflict?

The First Emailed Review: Fascinated by a More Accurate Telling of History

It is almost like when one finally decides to swallow that red pill because truth is the goal instead of desiring to believe what we have always believed. It is a risky move, one taken by those who value truth over comfort.

I believe the bonus is the freedom found in this path as one can then begin to revisit one’s own principles again and again in life’s journey and be willing to admit that we were once blind to truth, but now are just beginning to see.

Personally, I had already had some moments in my life when I decided to dig deeper past the veneer so that the data-points my principles relied on were more stable than imaginary. This process started when I was a child well before my parents separated and eventually divorced. I was already at six years old questioning why the people in church on a Sunday morning were not as happy as what I was reading in the Bible’s New Testament in the book of Acts. I was already wondering about how the vows of marriage could be de-prioritized and why school friends could betray one another in just a few seconds. Later in life during my senior year of high school I joined (volunteered) the US Navy and began another adventure into seeing what really takes place behind the curtain.

All of these events (and others that I plan to share in the future) seemed at first, for a few seconds or a minute, to disappoint. However, I quickly became convinced time and again that I was in fact “gratefully disillusioned“. Reflecting back, I am sure that the personality I have been blessed with, Meier’s-Briggs ENFP, as well as my life experiences to date have helped to be in fact grateful in the process. I am indeed thankful for a mind that is inquisitive no matter what the cost, and thankful that I desire truth over safety or security.

It is interesting that with this personality you can imagine that my circle of “close” friends is on the small side. The fact that my wife of almost 38 years still loves me is really nothing short of a miracle. But the few real friends I have had over the years were just that, real. They had no agenda of their own and were interested in what I had to share even if they did not believe or agree with it. Those friendships are a blessing, and even more so are those friendships what allow two couples to get together and have a great time together no matter how much time elapses between visits.

With that foundation, let me share what my first e-mailed review contained to the son (Captain1776) who had bought the book ‘The Swamp Fox: How Francis Marion Saved the American Revolution‘ by John Oller.

It is my hope here on this ‘SeekingLiberty’ blog, to begin to unpack the truths I found in this book that deal with a time and place where an empire was pushing hard to retain control and levy taxes to support their operations. It is in this environment where a freedom fighter is born, one with principles that balance the violence one must bring at times with compassion for those caught up in the conflict.

As promised … here is the 1st of several snippets that will give you a flavor of the caliber of this book.

1) I can’t believe how much the SC part of the revolutionary conflict was a war among themselves … Whigs (patriots) could change into a Tory (loyalist) overnight IF they were done wrong … and I thought the Israelites were fickle .. even some of the early patriots faded away in 1780 when the British humiliated the American forces in Charleston that May.

2) The character in the movie The Patriot is a combination of Francis Marion (Swamp Fox) in eastern SC, Thomas Sumter in central SC and Andrew Pickens in the northwest mountainous part of SC dealing with the indians (Cherokees sided with British, other tribes with patriots)

3) August 16, 1780 was SC’s darkest hour as former hero of Saratoga in the north (Gen Gates) fled like a pansy after he went head-to-head with the British in open field .. turns out the 5’2″ 110 pound Francis (physique of a 13 yo) [NOTE: never called the Swamp Fox in his lifetime ] got lucky 2x .. the 1st time when he injured his ankle getting out of that officer’s house in Charleston and therefore avoided capture in May 1780, he also was sent on a mission by Gates on August 15, 1780 to assist the patriots in the Williamsburg, SC area .. Scotch-Irish Presbyterians are fiercely independent and dislike external authority.

4) Francis was a French Huguenot .. but his grandfather came across with that background but by 1780 Francis was an Anglican. He was the youngest in his family .. tried being a sailor but the ship to the West Indies capsized and he was adrift for days and returned to SC. Eventually his oldest brother Gabriel sold him land adjacent to his own and Francis did the rice/indigo thing (pre-cotton) and did pretty good. He never married until he was in his mid-50s after the war.

5) August 18, 1780, Thomas Sumter’s partisan band of 800 were surprised by Banastre Tarleton’s force of 160 on horses and he like Gates escaped to North Carolina ..

It was in this pit that Francis Sumter became SC’s freedom fighter … on his own. He tried to communicate with Gen Gates (Continental Army Southern Command) but he rarely got a reply much less any support. Over the next two years SC would be the hotspot .. and at the end of the day, 20% of the Revolutionary War deaths would be in SC

Does that set the scene or what? 🙂

dad

—
“This message has been intercepted by the NSA: the only branch of government that listens”

QUESTION:

Reflecting on what your American History teachers taught you, does the news that the intensity of the American Revolution effort shifted to the Southern front surprise you? If not, what about the claim that Francis Marion actually saved the American Revolution?

If so, hang on as I am about to unpack the story that took place in South Carolina from 1780-1783.