Tag: Francis Marion

You Are An Individual Created in God’s Image FIRST, Not Primarily a Communal Pawn in Society

When one thinks life could not get more difficult, government speaks again.

I do believe that non-believers and believers BOTH can be led down a road that makes them both believe that they have to power in their life to do anything but submit to the whims of either the government or the mob (even when those are both the same people).

Jon Rappaport says:

“Some people want to say that power is a neutral object that can be used for good or evil. That isn’t true. Your deepest power is alive. It’s personal. It’s stunningly energetic and dynamic. It connects with your deepest understanding of what is true and good and right. But it never sacrifices itself on the altar of what others insist is good and true and right. It never deserts you for an abstract ideology someone else has devised. That ideology was formulated, in fact, to separate you from your power.”

Government and other collective organizations do NOT want individuals to even think they have the ability to be creative in their disobedience towards proactively chosing freedom and liberty. They want a society full of people who are fearful and hesitant to do anything but comply.

Even if you are not a believer in Jesus and who He claimed to be I do think it is helpful to note how his life was shaped by the Roman Empire and what that means for us today. He did not always overtly and publicly disobeyed the empire He found Himself in back in His lifetime, but at times went into the wilderness, traveled to another part of the occupied land and at other times just disappeared until He chose to speak truth to power.

Unfortunately, many of His followers find themselves in a religion that relies on their government connection for their franchise’s validation as a “church” on record with the state/empire. This Pharisee-centric setup might work well when the government is less evil, but is ill-suited for most of the governments in the world today. From my own blog back in July 2018 I had said/quoted:

Bionic Mosquito goes on to expand [Gerald] Casey’s thoughts regarding both Old and New Testament telling of various “faith-state” moments. 1 Samuel 8 is a good “go-to” to see God’s view of earthly kings (verses the wise judge model He attempted with the theocracy Israel) followed by Hosea 8 in which shows God allowing governments while not endorsing them.  On the New Testament moments, this proves to be a “target-rich” environment to see how Jesus as well as His followers dealt with the “State” while living their “faith”:

Regarding the life of Jesus, Casey offers…

“…we can see immediately that his very life was bookended by acts of political significance, from King Herod’s murderous intentions at his birth to the final drama of his politically inspired execution.”

This is the lens through which all Scriptural discussion of kings and earthly authority should be viewed. Casey offers that the New Testament is a target-rich environment when one wants to find passages regarding kings and government; he limits himself to five. I will touch on only a couple of these.

As much as I want to proceed with these, I believe they would be well served to address in a future post. Romans 13, taken in isolation, has formed the bedrock belief most Jesus followers have today about their relationship with the State. This view is enhanced by the Christian Religion which in the US has identified themselves (with a few brave exceptions, please see Chuck Baldwin’s rebellion to this alliance) with financially beneficial 501C3 status as state recognized corporations. Bionic Mosquito also offers this in conclusion:

Keep in mind: virtually every one of Jesus’s disciples died in martyrdom, died in disobedience to the political authorities. Do you really believe they are all damned to hell due to their “disobedience”?

Disobedience toward government is not something I suggest lightly. Every INDIVIDUAL has the power to wisely discern when that time might come for THEM. While government is great at making communal decrees and being “surprised” by the unintended consequences, especially Christ-followers are encouraged to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves while selling a cloak and buying a sword should the situation of self-defense present itself for them and their family and their property.

One of the most interesting examples of this is the story of Francis Marion (somewhat mirrored by the movie “The Patriot” (2000) and the fictitious Benjamin Martin) who finds himself in a land that is under siege by an empire bent on enslaving the colony he found himself in during 1780. As a military veteran, he had initial allegiance to the crown but as he saw the actions of this force in his land he decided for himself that enough was enough.

The story of Francis Marion actually inspired the creation of this blog over three years ago as I saw in his life the balance between love of country and the willingness to inspire others toward righting this wrong that was thrust on him and his neighbors even though he was in the minority. One must know that during the American Revolution, one third of the people were in strict obedience to the crown, one third were indifferent and one third were inclined toward more liberty and freedom than the crown was going to allow. Even then, only 3% or less actually took up arms at this time to force the issue when it was apparent that the empire was not going to meet their demands for freedom and liberty even half way. The empire in 1780 was all in on the total control of the American colonies, a totalitarian state was their view of the future.

Again, revisiting my blog post from June 2018:

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”

That e-mail to my sons Captain1776 and Malibu would later be transformed into a Google Blogger blog and eventually into this freedom-centric seeking-liberty blog whose mission is to always entertain thoughts (data) before accepting them while helping others to think critically towards securing freedom for themselves, their family and friends. Understanding history correctly allows people to think and act for themselves as individuals as needed for the times we are in today, and for the generations to follow.

Remember, when the empire tells you that you are just a number, and that you are small, and that you can’t make a difference and that you don’t matter in the grand scheme of things, KNOW that that is all a lie.

The individual does have power, and being made in God’s image makes that a reality. Don’t forget that!

Peace out.

-SF1

From Yankee to Marxist Color Revolution: An Interesting Timeline to Consider

In the quest to understand what might be upon us here in 2020, to utilize CSI techniques to identify where this effort against individuals and private property while dutifully labeling everyone into different groups where collectively somehow all the wrongs can be righted, one can use history to double-check that one is not indeed going bat-sh*t crazy.

The Marxist push in this land did not spring up overnight, nor only during Obama’s administration, nor after Reagan’s or even FDRs. One needs to go way back to when Europeans came to America’s shores to spot the germ of this parasitic plant.

I eluded to this in my last post calling out the GOP’s DNA being so similar to that of BLMs. This however was not the original birth or insertion of this parasite onto our shores. We have to go back to the first incursions onto this continent as highlighted in a recent post from Abbeville Institute when Jason Morgan rightly said:

Being unwelcome in England due to his penchant for religious terrorism, the Yankee was exiled across the sea where he immediately set about destroying the civilizations he found here. He ran wild against the Wampanoag and the Iroquois. He put the Lakota and the Navajo into camps, where they remain. He later crossed another sea, imprisoned the Hawaiian queen, committed genocide against the Moros, napalmed the Vietnamese in their farming villages, and put the torch to the cultural treasures of Japan. Having practiced looting and pillaging in Atlanta, he put his well-honed skills to use in Baghdad, the ruination of museums and relics following wherever he directed his gaze.

I just love this 30,000 foot view of the trends in history to sort all this out or at least consider in light of these trying times that impact our body and soul.

Norman Rockwell’s Icabod Crane

While most assume that Yankee just indicates being from the US north as opposed to Rebel being that from the US southern states, its roots actually had to do with the Dutch in the late 1600s:

[Yankee] a name applied disparagingly by Dutch settlers in New Amsterdam (New York) to English colonists in neighboring Connecticut. It may be from Dutch Janke, literally “Little John,” diminutive of common personal name Jan.

By 1820 Washington Irving’s story of “The Headless Horseman” Ichabod Crane was a Yankee who had come from Connecticut to New York and “made himself a nuisance” so a young New Yorker played a trick on him to send him packing back to “Yankeeland”.

At this time, even in the current region of the Midwest (called “The West”) most settlers and pioneers came from Virginia, Carolinas and even Texas after the War of 1812 to break in the land of prairies and forests past the Ohio River.

The Yankees from New England and New York State came later via railroads, especially just before and after the so-called Civil War to ply their trade in spite of their general repugnant character.

Clyde Wilson has spent his lifetime in part trying to understand the Yankee mindset as he has read so many personal accounts from those with more humble characters encounter this rather unique character originally from the northeast. He noticed in Thomas Jefferson’s writings:

Thomas Jefferson himself once complained that “It is true that we are completely under the saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and that they ride us very hard, insulting our feelings, as well as exhausting our strength and substance.” This was long before anyone began debating the issue of slavery. The Yankees said Jefferson, “were marked with such a perversity of character” that America was bound to be forever divided between Yankees and non-Yankees.

Clyde goes on to compare what he has seen in recent years as being a continuation of this:

[Clyde] Wilson describes how New England writers have falsified the history of America by emphasizing the Mayflower Pilgrims while ignoring or downplaying the earlier, Jamestown Pilgrims; by pretending that New Englanders alone won the American Revolution and ignoring the efforts of Francis Marion and other Southern revolutionary heroes; by ludicrously portraying the Virginia planter George Washington as a New England “prig” in their books and movies; and of course reserving their biggest lies in their discussions of the causes and consequences of the “Civil War.” As if to prove Jefferson’s point, Daniel Webster wrote in his diary: “O New England! How superior are thy inhabitants in morals, literature, civility and industry”

Puke. Seriously? I guess Daniel Webster was as much a Yankee then as Hillary Clinton is today:

There is no better example of this today than that “museum-quality” specimen of a Yankee – self-righteous, ruthless, and self-aggrandizing as Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her pay-to-play Clinton Foundation.”

Priceless. At the end of the day their character can be summed up as:

[Clyde] Wilson describes “Yankees” as “that peculiar ethnic group descended from New Englanders, who can be easily recognized by their arrogance, hypocrisy, greed, lack of congeniality, and penchant for ordering other people around”

Y’all all know these people, from North, South, East and West, they are everywhere!

So it is a great delight to share a few more highlights from Jason’s blog post:

And yet, for all that, the Yankee is nevertheless a human being. With patient tutelage he, too, may be brought into the world of gentility and manners. His is not a hopeless case, no matter how large loom the depredations of his tribe. ..

The United States is a long experiment in this very thing. Our Yankee cousins, inflicted on us as God gave the Philistines to the Hebrews, are a test and a burden, but also a chance to do real charity and teach the wayward how to live like human beings. From age to age the South has tempered the Hun-like nature of the Yankee, patiently bearing with him and quietening him in his atavistic fits…

The Yankee has ever been anxious to take up his weapons and bathe in the blood of innocents as his ancestors did. We know firsthand, unfortunately, how the Yankee behaves when war gets into his head. But even a raging Yankee may be soothed and tamed, with time. American history is the history of the South trying to teach the Yankee to behave like a gentleman. We have not always succeeded, but we have tried.

Honor and principles are usually not in the Yankee’s repertoire.  Individuality and respect for others made in God’s image is in the heart of Southerners whereas ..

.. the Yankee hates order and gentility, and so they range the cities of the plain looking for some scrap of civilization to demolish. Lee, Jackson, Jefferson, all are defaced. Revealing his utter ignorance, the Yankee even lashes out against statues of the 54th Massachusetts, against Lincoln and Grant. (Did you think the Yankee was learning any history in his trade schools?)

At the end of the day, anyone can attempt to know what is good and true from the Southern tradition. One must know that the “slavery” label is the Yankee’s only defense in attempting their own complacency of those days when chattel slavery was actually encouraged by the banks and shipbuilders of the north. Only when the south attempted to leave the union so that their economy would have to adjust did they wage war on a peaceful, orderly, legal secession of seven states.

Everyone who loves his home and wants to protect and preserve his heritage is a partner. There are Southern natives of Michigan and Minnesota, California and Maine, who labor patiently at the arts and at husbandry. It is not a paradox but the deepest truth of America that anyone in the North who holds America dear and loves his family and homeland is a fellow Southerner. Likewise, the South, thronged with Yankees, has largely forgotten what it means to cherish, to forgive, to clear weeds from the heart and give thanks for even the hard things. We have been under Yankee capture for far too long. We all need to learn to be civilized.

Black and white, yellow and brown, red and sable, come, let us live like God intended, bearing with one another, being Christians, helping one another, not nursing hatred in our souls.

Again, there is something here that resonates with today’s world seemly split between those who see others made in God’s image and the balance that see them as worthless users of the earth’s resources (Green agenda) or oppressors (Marxist agenda) of the common man or even the evil elite (New World Order/Central Bank) that demand a financial reset to get all this under control.

Humble reflection is essential to stay the course, to True North, in these days ahead ..

Peace out

-SF1

When Innovative Projects Get Hijacked (Part 2 of 2)

As a follow-up to my previous post about innovation hijacking, the above photo shows President George Washington leading 13,000 troops to put down a tax rebellion that was totally just according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent

Alexander Hamilton’s plan to pay for the combined war debts of all the colonies with a heavy Whiskey Tax (in today’s terms, $2.50/gallon), in the Distilled Spirits Tax of 1791 act.

How very British of Alexander right? Apparently, the Amerexit (secession of the thirteen colonies from the British empire) was all in vain as the names and flags have changed but power instead of liberty reigns yet again. Hijacked!

So in my last post I had shown how George Washington, as a young British officer, sparked a war between two superpowers in the Ohio country, called the French Indian War (1754-1763), this conflict had a distinct fallout in the American colonies after its conclusion.  My effort today is where:

… I hope to bring both the ramp-up to revolution over the next 25 years (1750-1775) as well as the end result of the quest for independence into focus, and how the dreams of the 20% of the people that were for independence, liberty and freedom were hijacked resulting in a culture in 1790 that involved the very things they were fighting against:

… tyranny, new or higher taxes, monopolies, and restrictions …

By the end of the war the British Empire was the undisputed superpower in both North America and Europe and was all too eager to foist upon their hapless colonial subjects the previously unenforced Navigation Acts along with new taxes. Thanks George!

The liberty experienced for the past 140+ years started losing ground to increased power that the state brings with coercion and violence. To be sure, this shift was gradual, but within a generation it was clear that the British empire failed to understand each of the American colonies to the extent that they should never had intervened from thousands of miles away. As any parent knows, once you have a child on the way to their own independent life, attempting to control that child for the parent’s own well-being is an effort in futility UNLESS you make slaves of everyone.

In England itself, with the liberal Whigs out of power and the warmongering Tories in control, there was fresh support for the new King George III who would station its troops in the colonies during peacetime, enforce the Navigation Acts, restrict western settlement to stunt growth, and institute new Parliamentary taxation. Statist power came like a pendulum to each of the colonies. So with the Proclamation Line of 1763 that restricted western settlement, the 1764 American Revenue Act that enacted taxes on sugar and increased customs enforcement, and the 1765 Stamp Act that raised new taxes on paper products, it was finally The Stamp Act that was especially hated and produced a storm of protest.

Why was there no general revolt in 1763, or 1764? Murray Rothbard has a thought from his fifth volume of Conceived in Liberty:

Ultimately, revolutions are mass phenomena, and cannot succeed without the support—indeed the active and enthusiastic support—of the great majority of the population. . . . Otherwise it will not even make a respectable showing, much less take and keep the reins of government. But the masses will not move, will not erupt, if they lack aggressive leaders to articulate their grievances and to point the path for them to follow. The leaders supply the necessary theoretical justification and analysis of the revolution’s short- and long-term goals. Unaided by leaders, the masses tend to accept each act of tyranny, not out of willing agreement, but from failure to realize that successful opposition can be mounted against the status quo. The articulation by the leaders is the final necessary spark that ignites the tinderbox of revolution.

Leaders are not appointed, they rise to the occasion when this kind of statist tyranny happens. These leaders risk all, as during the American Revolution demonstrated in just the lives of those that signed the Declaration of Independence.

In 1765, Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams, who respectively wrote the Virginia Resolves and Massachusetts Resolves stepped up their game. Sam Adams also established a resistance group known as the Loyal Nine, which soon expanded into the colony-wide Sons of Liberty. The result was that by 1766 The Stamp Act was repealed.

However, in Massachusetts after the passage of the tax-increasing Townshend Acts in 1767, British troops occupied Boston and colonial assemblies were forced to be dissolved. The colonies responded to this increasing coercion with mass non-importation protests that severely hurt British commerce. This BOYCOTT sent a message to the British that eventually, three YEARS later resulted in that the Townshend Acts were partially repealed in 1770.

Yet again, the British Empire pushed buttons yet again as they are now dealing with a teenager, and enacted the Tea Act of 1773 that extended the British East India Company’s tea monopoly to American shores.

This was epic BS as ANY nation that picks and chooses where their people can purchase products THEY want (i.e. free trade) is not a friend of the consumer and is a fried of both economic warfare and eventual physical warfare. Here is looking at you President Trump with all your sanctions and trade deals. But I digress …

Those in Boston promptly responded accordingly with the famous Boston Tea Party of December 1773. Great Britain responded with the Coercive, or “Intolerable” Acts of 1774, which provoked the assembly of the First Continental Congress in late 1774.

It was at this point that the radicals (I am pretty sure in 2019 USA that these people would have been targeted, marginalized and most likely suicided), led by Massachusetts’ Sam and John Adams and Virginia’s Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, battled the conservatives and decided upon a colony-wide boycott of all British products.

In the spring of 1775, the British redcoats responded by trying to arrest Massachusetts radicals John Hancock and Sam Adams, who were currently near military supplies in Concord. Paul Revere traveled to nearby Lexington to warn of the impending British, and colonial minutemen confronted the approaching British troops. The showdown led to the famous “Shot Heard Round the World,” and the American Revolution began.

At this point, with open warfare on the people, which is what the confiscation of firearms is, how does liberty respond to power? Philosophically, it was with managing the war that the forces of liberty faced their most difficult challenge, since war is naturally a coercive event that leads to death and destruction.

The war itself split the liberty lovers that probably included less than 20% of the general population. Many would align with power within this renegade government and use British tactics and statism against the British. How absurd. Bringing war to a larger power in the same way that larger power does war is a study in insanity. This was accomplished both during the American Revolution as well in the Second American Revolution, the War Against Southern Independence that most people refer to as the American Civil War.

Murray Rothbard, in Conceived in Liberty Volume I-IV, yet again points to what method actually saved the American Revolution, which was the use of guerilla warfare where he is paraphrased as saying:

… the Patriots’ greatest military strength lay in their guerrilla warfare tactics (ambushing armies, sneaking behind enemy lines, disrupting supply chains, etc.) and he argued that the only libertarian method of fighting a war is through such guerrilla warfare. This is because it is relatively inexpensive since there is no standing army, soldiers are better motivated because they are close to home, and there is far less need for a stifling and oppressive military bureaucracy.

.. and beyond this, the strategy that was chosen:

.. the decision to fight the war conventionally led to enormous government intervention in the economy through paper-money inflation, debt financing, price controls, and confiscation of goods

War debt leads once again to a desire for a strong central government that will eventually bring tyranny to the forefront yet again, like in 1794 with Washington leading 13,000 troops into Western Pennsylvania and the very real situation we have today with a militarized Redcoat fully entrenched here in the USA in 2019:

So we have come full circle in showing how this struggle between liberty and innovation has with power and political status-quo bureaucracy.

So quickly, in general, I will offer two of my own experiences with this as I referred to in my previous post:

Also in “Part 2”, I hope to offer my own general experiences of where an innovative project’s dreams were hijacked by political and organizational forces bent on expediency and short term gains.

I have a two in mind, one in business and one in ministry, that I have personally participated in. The parallels are very interesting!

It does seem that innovative projects and initiatives do threaten the political status-quo in any organization. I have no doubt that this is the main reason that Jesus himself resisted the human-natural act of forming an organization to accomplish some vision or mission.

In corporate America, as opposed to smaller businesses, there seems to be a bent toward managing verses leading, that risks are to be totally managed so as to really make no progress at all for years or decades. In the end, the business can no longer sustain itself as management surrounds itself with “yes men” (I know that sounds wrong in this PC-world, just assume someone else e-mailed me about this aggression) and stifles innovation that would actually IMPROVE the ability of the business to provide value to its customers going forward.

In my specific case, a very innovative project was hijacked in the development stage by management that failed to understand the project’s attributes and decided to bring in a partner that was ill-equipped to compete development and bring the project into production. Along the way, typical traits were demonstrated like the marginalization of those who really knew the core philosophy of the project as well as how the design was intended to positively impact this business. In the end, money was squandered and the project, like so many in government circles (F-35, Ford Carrier Class, etc), ends up imploding and being a general dumpster fire where good money is thrown after bad.

In organized ministry circles, similar innovative approaches can also bring the status-quo political fake news people out of the woodwork to halt anything that they can understand as being beneficial for people who could use a relationship with Jesus to bring peace and love to their lives and give them an insight into the way that Papa (God, Father) is especially fond of them. Close-minded church-goers and rule-followers have little patience for alternative ways that people can be reached whether is be from one’s home, from a coffee-house or even in the marketplace.

In my specific case, a ministry that had already transitioned from an inward facing clique/country club to a spiritual family that actually had a heart for those without Jesus, just could not give up their view that the church building was the center of what Jesus-following is all about. Threatened that their years of tithing (investing) might find them not able to realize their ROI, they effectively marginalized any staff (professional/volunteer) personnel that would not maintain the new status-quo.

In both instances, the lost dreams of the innovators has to be grieved, which is a process that every visionary has to deal with in their own terms. While they will many times see the positives and learnings that came out of the process as being very beneficial for the next “project/dream”, there is usually always a scar on ones heart to those that gave their all to attempt something that others barely or rarely understand, something much bigger than themselves.

I can only reflect on how Francis Marion, guerilla leader of the militia in South Carolina (1780-1783) that successfully dogged Cornwallis so that he could eventually be trapped by the French fleet at Yorktown. After much of the conflict was over, he was already being marginalized for the next chapter of life in the American Colonies as I indicated in a previous post:

So by the fall of 1781 as the British catastrophe at Yorktown reverberated throughout the British Empire, there were nationalist forces that were already parting ways with the radicals, and even the militias that brought them to this day. By 1783, Francis Marion saw the writing on the wall. The NOV1782 election meant that Marion had to leave Pond Bluff yet again for the 06JAN1783 legislative session. Writing from there on January 18th he shared the inequalities that tainted his excitement about the future of the colony as well of the federation of states. It seems that the Rhode Islander Continental Nathaniel Greene was awarded 10,000 guineas from SC toward the purchase of a SC plantation and quoted an old saying “that kissed goes by favor”. Georgia had also given Greene 24,000 acres as well. Marion eventually was awarded 300 acres in 1785.

It should be noted that the correspondence Marion had with Greene stopped abruptly as the hostilities stopped in DEC1782. Marion had hoped that Congress would follow through on the promise of a lifetime of half-pay for officers but it would be 50 years before that practice would finally start. Marion lamented that “idle spectators of war” were in charge now.

It is little wonder then why there is much more effort needed to be put towards the maintenance of liberty in this broken world than it does to maintain power. It seems that power, and kings, is the default mode of man:

Just some things to reflect on.

I do hope this allows y’all to reflect on history as well as current events.

-SF1

Fall 1781: Momentum of the Revolutionary War Shifts, So Does “The Cause”

There is light at the end of the tunnel, and there is movement afoot that takes place mainly north of the Potomac River that I contend is normal in this broken world. When freedom breaks out, there are those that instill fear in the people that politics, bigger and more centralized, is needed to secure our future.

While this article is a bit dated (I believe I was still in the US Navy at the time), it does point out a few things that I have been saying off and on in my blog over the past year or so. I bring it up now since my ongoing coverage of Francis Marion’s activities in South Carolina, which actually saved the colonies in their efforts to exit the British Empire, is entering the post-Yorktown phase where military conflicts and such give way back to the political.

The standard American myth celebrates the Constitution as the triumphant culmination of the American Revolution. This is largely untrue and misleading.

Everyone in government schools has heard, the Articles of Confederation was weak and ill equipped to govern the thirteen colonies, let alone all the additional lands that the Treaty of Paris granted in 1783:

The facts, and not that era’s fake news, paints a much different scene:

The alleged “critical period” between the end of the Revolution and the Constitution’s adoption was not dominated by economic depression, political turmoil, and international peril, jeopardizing the independent survival of the American experiment in liberty.

There was no actual threat, but a threat was thought up in the minds of those politicians whose political descendants include the politicians that orchestrated the War of 1812, the Mexican-American War, the so-called Civil War and so on. In each of these instances, there was a fear introduced into the population that without a war, catastrophe was imminent.

In context, backing up to the period of time before even the Declaration of Independence was penned (raw thoughts by Thomas Paine and edited by Thomas Jefferson), there was a joining of efforts from people in the thirteen colonies across a political and philosophical spectrum. On one hand, we have the RADICALS:

The American Revolution, like all great social upheavals, was brought off by a disparate coalition of competing viewpoints and conflicting interests. At one end of the Revolutionary coalition stood the American radicals—men such as Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Jefferson.

Although by no means in unanimous agreement, the radicals objected to excessive state power in general and not simply to British rule in particular. Spearheading the Revolution’s opening stages, they were responsible for the truly revolutionary alterations in the internal status quo: the abolition of slavery in the northern states, the separation of church and state in the southern states, the rooting out of remaining feudal privileges everywhere, and the adoption of new, republican state constitutions containing written bills of rights that severely hemmed in government power.

These were change agents, those daring visionaries that can see life lived differently, and at the same time knew that this would not be a utopia, but in reality would be a struggle, but a rewarding one.

On the other hand, was a class of people that we might consider to be nationalists or those whose major agenda was that of mercantilism:

At the other end of the Revolutionary coalition were the American nationalists; an array of mercantile, creditor, and landed interests. The nationalists went along with independence but opposed the Revolution’s libertarian thrust. They sought a strong American state with the hierarchical features of the 18th-century British state, only without the British.

So by the fall of 1781 as the British catastrophe at Yorktown reverberated throughout the British Empire, there were nationalist forces that were already parting ways with the radicals, and even the militias that brought them to this day.  By 1783, Francis Marion saw the writing on the wall. The NOV1782 election meant that Marion had to leave Pond Bluff yet again for the 06JAN1783 legislative session. Writing from there on January 18th he shared the inequalities that tainted his excitement about the future of the colony as well of the federation of states. It seems that the Rhode Islander Continental Nathaniel Greene was awarded 10,000 guineas from SC toward the purchase of a SC plantation and quoted an old saying “that kissed goes by favor”.  Georgia had also given Greene 24,000 acres as well. Marion eventually was awarded 300 acres in 1785.

It should be noted that the correspondence Marion had with Greene stopped abruptly as the hostilities stopped in DEC1782. Marion had hoped that Congress would follow through on the promise of a lifetime of half-pay for officers but it would be 50 years before that practice would finally start. Marion lamented that “idle spectators of war” were in charge now.

So too were the more nationalistic military leaders that benefited from a larger government:

Military conservatives such as George Washington induced Congress to focus the Revolutionary effort on a costly conventional force, the Continental Army, rather than the militias. By the 1781 Yorktown campaign, popular disgust at the army’s continuing hand-to-mouth existence gave the nationalists uncontested control of Congress. They proceeded to implement a financial program that gave the central government much more power.

While the nationalists attempted to strengthen the Articles of Confederation, their attempts through 1784 were met with resistance from the Radicals after the Treaty of Paris. The economic state of the states were generally fine economically except for two groups that put out a very public fuss:

In reality, American merchants were after uniform navigation laws, because they wanted some coercive means of monopolizing the American carrying trade. And American artisans wanted uniform protective tariffs to stop their customers from buying the cheap foreign goods flooding American markets at the end of the war. The unique economic fortunes of these two groups and their quest for special privileges contributed much to the exaggerated impression of postwar depression.

As we see today, coercive means to monopolize as well as protective tariffs are tools used yet today in 2019. Capitalism will always look to enhance their position by government if it will let them. Corporatism is the curse of politics gone too far.

So the Coup d’etat of the cause for the freedoms gained by the American Revolution would come at a convention in Philadelphia in 1787 whose purpose was to rework the Articles of Confederation, however:

Its official function was to propose revisions to the Articles. But the delegates, meeting in secret, quickly decided to draft a totally new document. Of the 55 delegates, only 8 had signed the Declaration of Independence. Most of the leading radicals, including Sam Adams, Henry, Paine,Lee, and Jefferson, were absent. In contrast, 21 delegates belonged to the militarist Society of the Cincinnati. Overall, the convention was dominated by the array of nationalist interests that the prior war had brought together: land speculators, ex-army officers, public creditors, and privileged merchants.

Things had definitely changed in one decade’s time, and not for the better! Look how far we have come since then.

Not cool!

We are much “safer” today as a result of the this early course change in this nation’s history, safe as slaves.

-SF1

04AUG1781 – The Hanging of Col. Issac Haynes (Age 35) Who Was Beloved by the People

In my last post regarding the American Revolution, specifically the actions in and around South Carolina that Brig. Gen. Francis Marion was heavily and sacrificially involved with, I eluded to the backstory around the British hanging of a beloved 35 year old, probably as an example towards intimidating the colony’s inhabitants.

Issac Haynes was a popular planter and patriot military officer who during the summer of 1780, after Charlestown’s fall to the British, was traveling from his plantation to Charlestown to obtain a doctor and medical supplies for his very ill wife and children. The British would not allow him to pass through their lines back home without swearing an oath of allegiance.

With the early 1781 successes of the militia in South Carolina, the British sought to enlist Issac in the Loyalist militia. At the same time, patriot militia groups were also hoping Issac would join them as Francis Marion had been told another 200 men would follow this beloved planter. Eventually, Marion himself issued a commission which made Issac a Lt. Col. in the South Carolina militia. After some reluctance on the part of Issac, he relented and joined the cause.

In early July 1781, Issac led the militia near Charlestown to capture former patriot leader Andrew Williamson who took British protection a year prior. British leadership at Charlestown countered by sending Thomas Fraser with 90 cavalry to retrieve Williamson and took Issac Haynes prisoner. The British served justice in a way that tyrants do by not allowing Issac any counsel and was unable to call any witnesses. He found himself sentenced to death.

This news caused such an uproar in Charlestown among the ladies their and even some high-society Loyalists that the British decided to stand firm and united in this decision. Balfour, Rawdon and even Charlestown police chief Charles Fraser (brother to Thomas) all concurred. Haynes had countered to the charge of switch allegiance was due to the lack of British protection in the countryside from the Whig groups which was the exchange for his taking this oath.

While there was logic to this argument, the British were not ready to have hundreds of others seeking justice due to the British inability to honor their end of this agreement. The British decided, in a Banastre Tarleton way, to make an example out of Issac Haynes.

So on 04AUG1781, after a farewell session with his family, he was paraded through the streets of Charlestown past crowds who were moved to tears to the gallows. He took control of this even in a firm and serene way, proceeded to pull the cap over his own eyes, shook hands with the three gentlemen who would oversee his children’s care and himself gave the signal to move the cart to let him hang.

The firestorm ensued and emotions ran high, not just in Charlestown, or in the colony of South Carolina, but even overseas as well as even the British Parliament considered a motion to condemn Rawdon in this decision. The Southern Region Continental leader Greene stressed restraint (was Marion an influence here?) as the cycle of violence would result in revenge hangings across the colony.

This event had its blow-back, causing a potent rallying cry for southern patriots to be created. While there were other men closer to Charleston who quit the field thinking they were next, those away from the last British stronghold were more fervent in their cause.

Gen. Nathanael Greene soon orders Marion to attack British lines of
communication around Charleston. From his base on the Santee, Marion departed with his 200 men and picked up another 150 with the destination being south of Charleston on the Ashepoo River called the Horseshoe. The forces opposite his was a Hessian led force of over 500 men (180 Hessians, 150 British Redcoats, 130 Tory Loyalists and 80 dragoons under Fraser). This was essentially a foraging party that were transporting rice back to Charleston.

On 27AUG1781, Marion attempted an ambush at Godfrey’s Savannah. Lt. Col. Ernst Leopold von Borck was in charge of this British contingent, Maj. Thomas Fraser was the real target of this effort, but in the end he has to abort his plan. There were multiple failures to follow his orders as it was pretty apparent with the enemy’s two field pieces (none for the patriot militia), this would not end well.

On 31AUG1781 at Parker’s Ferry Marion finally gets his battle with Lt. Col. Ernst Leopold von Borck. The British on 29AUG1781 had moved to Isaac Hayne’s Plantation where Issac was just buried and Brig. Gen. Marion had followed this force again and sets up his camp only five miles away. Marion conceals his men in a swamp beside the causeway and directs Col. William Harden’s men o move back 100 yards from the ambush line so they can be used as reserves. Maj. Samuel Cooper and sixty swordsmen are told to attack the rear of the enemy after the ambush is initiated. They then wait for an opportunity.

Lt. Col. Ernst Leopold von Borck leaves Hayne’s Plantation in mid-afternoon with his infantry and has placed his two pieces of artillery in front of the column while Maj. Thomas Fraser and his mounted SC Royalists are in the rear of the column. It is almost dark on the 31st when they stumble into a firefight between Marion’s men and handful of Loyalist that have just discovered them.

Lt., Col. von Borck orders Maj. Fraser to drive off the Patriots so he sends Lt. Stephen Jarvis charging forward while he places his three other divisions on the road, and also to the left and right of the road.

Brig. Gen. Marion’s mounted men charge Lt. Jarvis, who reverses course quickly. Maj. Fraser believes that these are Col. William Harden’s men and
orders his cavalry in full gallop to intercept them.

Marion now has the enemy right where he wants them. He signals his hidden men, and instantly Maj. Fraser’s horsemen are surrounded. At a distance of 40 yards, the Patriots open up with buckshot and the dragoons go down.

Maj. Fraser rallies his men and tries to charge, but the Patriots deliver a second volley, and then a third volley. There is no way for Maj. Fraser to attack in the swamp so he has to withdraw down the causeway down the full length of the ambush. Maj. Fraser is badly bruised when his horse is killed and the rest of his cavalry rides over him as he lies in the road.

The patriots militia continue to occupy the causeway for three more hours until Marion sees British infantry with a field piece coming their way. His riflemen fire upon the field piece wounding and killing many accompanying it. Brig. Gen. Marion could have easily slaughtered
more of the SC Royalists with his rifles, but he is low on ammunition and his men have also not eaten in 24 hours, so he has them all just slip away
into the swamp.

Brig. Gen. Francis Marion reports that 20 Loyalist dragoons and 23 horses are dead on the spot. Brig. Gen. Francis Marion loses one man killed.
Col. William Stafford loses three wounded. The British evacuate the area and move back to Charlestown and Brig. Gen. Marion sends a party after them and they find 40 dead horses on the road. He then returns “home” to the Santee with his prisoners.

Mission accomplished! August 1781 has concluded with a further tighening around Charleston to keep the British foraging parties more heavily armed. Issac Haynes’ hanging motivates the true patriots to stay the course and drive the British Empire out of the colony of South Carolina.

-SF1