Tag: Tories

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

02NOV1780 – British Lt. Gen Charles, Lord Cornwallis Green Lights Lt. Col. Tarleton

The context for this decision by Corwallis to “green light” Tarleton is essential toward understanding the gravity of this moment in the confederation’s (thirteen colonies joined together for this cause) war for independence from the British Empire.

My previous post showed how Francis Marion’s winning streak was turning society away from leaning toward an inevitable “Loyalist” South Carolina and swelled the ranks of the patriots. From the book “Swamp Fox: How Francis Marion Saved the American Revolution“:

Marion’s victory at Tearcoat Swamp left the British high command in a state of panic. With no effective enemy force in the field, Marion now had the ability to strike at will throughout the entire area of South Carolina east of the Wateree River and north of the Santee.

As a result it had become almost impossible for the British to safely send supplies or communications from the coast to Cornwallis’s army. The Santee, the major navigable river flowing through the heart of the state, did not connect directly to either Georgetown or Charleston. Therefore, to move supplies from the coast to Camden and Winnsboro, it was necessary to use both roads and waterways. Typically the British traveled either overland or by boat to Nelson’s Ferry, where they crossed the Santee, then by wagon to Camden. But because of the threat Marion posed, the British were afraid to cross at Nelson’s and began taking a longer, more circuitous route to the northwest over more difficult roads to Friday’s Ferry on the Congaree River. From there they crossed the Congaree and traveled overland to Camden and Winnsboro.

Desperate times calls for desperate measures apparently. Lord Cornwallis, who prided himself publicly as a man who fought with honor decided to give in to Banastre Tarleton’s pleas to go after the guerrilla militia leader Marion. This was not just Cornwallis granting just any staff officer their desire, it was a calculated move based on Tarleton’s history, character and reputation. Cornwallis was brilliant in strategy, however, it seems that his assumption that American colonial society would quickly forget atrocities (underestimating “blowback”) may well have been one of his weaknesses, along with pride.

From the movie “The Patriot” (2000):

  • Benjamin Martin: I’ve just read into the mind of a genius. Cornwallis knows more about war then any of us could ever hope to learn in a dozen lifetimes. His victories at Camden and Charleston were perfect, perfect. The thing is, he knows that… and perhaps that’s his weakness.
  • Gabriel Martin: Sir?
  • Benjamin Martin: Pride. Pride’s a weakness.
  • Major Jean Villeneuve: Personally, I would prefer stupidity.
  • Benjamin Martin: Pride will do.

Basically, the man Cornwallis chose is the antithesis of Francis Marion. Read the following from John Oller’s words and see for yourself:

Young (twenty-six in 1780), boyishly handsome, athletically built, a drinker, gambler, and womanizer, he cut the sort of dashing figure that some have mistakenly ascribed to Marion. His stock in trade was his ruthless pursuit of his quarry followed by a headlong, frontal cavalry attack, with sabers flashing and slashing when he inevitably caught up with them. Son of a wealthy Liverpool slave-trading merchant, Tarleton attended Oxford and studied law at London’s prestigious Middle Temple before quitting to follow his friend and fellow Oxfordian, Francis Rawdon, into the military.

He purchased a “cornet,” or commission, in the British cavalry in 1775 and voluntarily sailed to America to fight with the king’s men. He was part of Clinton’s first, unsuccessful attack on Charleston, saw action at Brandywine, and helped capture Charles Lee, the Continental commander, in a raid on a tavern in late 1776. During the British occupation of Philadelphia he gambled away his salary, nearly dueled an officer whose mistress he dallied with, ..

Next, let us add in the 1780MAY actions of Tarleton as a follow-up to the British capturing Charlestown:

.. In late May, Cornwallis had dispatched Tarleton and his Legion of 230, along with a company of 40 British army dragoons, to pursue Colonel Abraham Buford. Having arrived too late to reinforce Charleston, Buford and his 350 Virginia Continentals were then on the run toward North Carolina. With them were Governor John Rutledge and some members of his council, who had fled Charleston before it fell.

Although the Americans had a ten-day head start on him, Tarleton drove his men relentlessly forward, covering 150 miles in fifty-four hours to catch up with them. Rutledge barely avoided capture by veering off from the main force hours ahead of the pursuers, but Tarleton overtook Buford just shy of the North Carolina border at a place called the Waxhaws. There, in Tarleton’s own words, “slaughter was commenced.”

Some historians think this is shear propaganda, however, there have been many direct sources that relay some rather harsh orders that this 28 year old gave to his men.  Here is some more detail from the claims that emerged after this event:

The patriot side claimed that after the fighting stopped, Tarleton’s men were guilty of outright massacre, hacking Buford’s men to death even as they lay down their arms and begged for quarter. “Tarleton’s Quarter” (meaning take no prisoners) and “Buford’s Massacre” became rallying cries for the patriots in later battles, notably King’s Mountain. What is sometimes overlooked is that although the commander of the king’s troops at both King’s Mountain and the Waxhaws was a Briton, virtually all the slaughtering was done by Americans against Americans.

This man had no long-term appreciation for what America would be like after his assumption of British subjection of the rebel spirit. This man is very much unlike Francis Marion in almost every way.

In the six months Tarleton had been in the colony of South Carolina, he bested the likes of William Washington, Issac Huger, A. Buford and even Thomas Sumter, all of senior rank to Tarleton. With a reputation like this, Corwallis was hoping for a quick win from someone who could get things done, even if it was done ruthlessly. Cornwallis had already spent more time than he would have liked in this southern colony and was anxious to maneuver north to bring a quick end to this conflict and bring the colonies back under the British wing.

With the “green light”, Tarleton moves out of Winnsboro which is 30 miles west of Camden and will take several days ride to arrive in the area Marion and his militia might be. Tarleton will be leading what is called a British Legion, which is actually a loyalist cavalry (American Tories) unit that was recruited from both New York and Pennsylvania. Legions consisted of traditional saber carrying cavalry and dragoons which are infantry who traveled on horses who had pistols and muskets.  Tarleton’s men wore green coats to set them from the redcoat British regulars.

The hunt is on, for this “fox” that has interrupted British operations in the region.

Stay tuned.

-SF1

 

03SEP1780 Francis Marion Receives Intel on Nearby Loyalist Militia (led by an ex-Patriot)

Blue Savannah Battle – Patriot Win

As it happened time and again in the Revolutionary War in South Carolina, many men changed sides for various reasons. Sometimes their house was burned down or horses were stolen. Other times, just the tide of war changing into the other “team’s” favor led men to leave one cause for another.

The pattern we have seen in the previous victories by Marion’s new milita force come into play once more. Intel is received on 03SEP1780 that Francis Marion keeps to himself that a larger Tory/loyalist force of 250 men lies north of them. Marion uses the element of surprise to move TOWARD the threat, a great military tactic, the next morning and engages a subset of this force under ex-Patriot Gainey who is known to be quite the hot-head.

As Marion’s 50 or so men scatter this force which emboldens Marion to quickly followup and engage the full force just three miles north. Marion then decides to quickly disengage, and retreat back to a savannah area described by J.W. Lewis and his work at his Carolana site:

He conceals his men at Blue Savannah, an open sandy area surrounded by scrub pines. Capt. Barefield leads his men right into the ambush. Col. Marion charges with 50 men, weapons firing and swords flying. Capt. Barefield’s men send one volley that hits three men, and then his men break and run. Col. Marion’s men pursue to the edge of the nearby swamp, but do not penetrate it. They know that a cornered enemy is very dangerous

Whether you count this as 3 for 3 (Nelson’s Ferry win, Kingstree win, Blue Savannah win) or 2 for 2 if you see Kingstree without Marion was only a skirmish, you should know that THIS will probably get Cornwallis’ attention. Never the less, Marion returns to his “home” in Britton’s Neck:

The next day Marion marched back to his camp at Britton’s Neck, where sixty new volunteers from Colonel Hugh Giles’s militia joined him, doubling the size of his yet small force. Two weeks earlier his name was unknown to the British, and now suddenly he was capable of operating behind Cornwallis’s lines and harassing his right (eastern) flank. It was a vexation his Lordship needed to eliminate before he could launch his planned invasion of North Carolina. The success of Marion’s hit-and-run tactics so infuriated the British high command that at least half a dozen death squads, beginning with Wemyss, were dispatched in sequence to go after him.

From: Oller, John. “The Swamp Fox: How Francis Marion Saved the American Revolution” (Kindle Locations 1063-1068). Da Capo Press. Kindle Edition.

The pressure would be on soon, but Marion keeps receiving valuable intel, this time on 07SEP1780 he hears how about 150 British regulars and Tories were burning the very homes of the men serving under Marion near Williamsburg. Marion would yet again do something that goes against military protocol, divide his smaller force into three forces:

  1. Sending Maj. James and a small group towards the British forces who were unleashing their frustration against the civilian population in the area
  2. Keeping 25 men at camp at Britton’s Neck
  3. Moving the remaining men, about 75 in all, towards Indiantown where he would meet up again with Maj. James who had even more intel to share

Once Francis Marion adds up all the numbers of British regulars and Tories that are in the area AND their mission, the North Carolina border (seen in the map above) will look real good!

-SF1

 

What is Up With the UK and Brexit?

From Armstrong Economics, some truth!

I have to say that Boris Johnson’s comment that Britain is headed for the status of a “colony” is absolutely correct. There are “remainers” who have simply ignored ALL the economic data and will seriously end Britain as any sort of viable economy. Britain has ALWAYS been treated as a second-class European culture and it will end up subservient to that of the EU. It may simply be too much to expect rational political leadership any more from Britain.

Exactly, first there were people with vision and reality that continued allegiance to the EU was not a healthy thing for the UK in any way shape or form, but again, fear of the unknown terrifies people and politicians. Sheep and sociopaths love safety over freedom every time.

The forecast is that the pressure in the system reaches a state of change. The PM simply has been afraid to leave Europe listening to all the propaganda and the pleas from European politicians who will lose their jobs if the EU collapses.

There are people now calling for Nigel Farage to return. Quite frankly, Nigel is probably the ONLY hope for Britain. Unless they cut the umbilical cord to the EU, Britain cannot possibly survive. Its economy has been sucked dry. Much of continental Europe secretly resents the UK and the USA for having to save them in two wars.

Yes, UK moving to a colony status is commensurate to their level of leadership .. a path most empires take in their last days. The US is not far behind!

Martin then goes into depth on the history of the Tories and Labour parties in the UK and laments that London, a city he lived in for five years, is dying along with the country.