Showing posts with label Patriotic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Patriotic. Show all posts

Saturday, October 12, 2013

FINAL FLICKERING FLAME FOR FREEDOM


Is the freedom Americans enjoy in its last stages or is it already just an illusion?  Does Liberty still exist in the U.S.A.?

Compared to most, if not all of the rest of the world, we still have remnants of freedom; but, compared to the America that existed following the Declaration of Independence, the War for Independence and the ratification of the Constitution; our freedom more resembles soft-core despotism. 

We hail our founders and show a level of respect for the founding documents, almost on the level of them being two more chapters of sacred inspiration.  But Americans, just like Christians, have been lax in their adherence to the law of the land and the Law of God.  We have allowed those with ulterior motives into the highest positions of power in our government.  We have forgotten the warnings which accompanied this country’s foundation:

John Adams – “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

Benjamin Franklin – When asked what form of government they had formed by the Constitution, responded; “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

We love both quotes but failed to live by either.  We the People have abandoned morality and God and have selected men and women for the highest offices of authority who are neither moral nor religious.  They have proceeded to do just what the warning expected, taken advantage of their power to strip away areas of liberty.  We have failed to make sure our elected representatives function under a Republic and actually obey the law.  We have celebrated when politicians of our own persuasion got away with something over their opponents, even when it violated their oath of office and the law of the land.

The decline of America, as a bastion of freedom, has been on a steady pace for the past century.  The year 1913, was a stab in the back by a two-edged sword:  the ratification of both the 16th and 17th Amendments to the Constitution, which were the implementation of the Income Tax and the change to have direct election of Senators by the public.  Both have been a disaster and each helped set the stage for a Progressive agenda whereby the central government would become oppressive in the taking of the wages of the People and the loss of sovereignty (Federalism) by the States over the central government. 

We heard the pleas of individuals from other nations where they warned us to guard our liberty, as America is the last hope on Earth; but we proudly puffed out our chest, raised our chins and marched forward…blindly, in the wrong direction.  For some reason, we have lived much of our lives ignoring what was going on in Washington and ignorantly believing our Liberty was secure and being guarded by all of those who swore an oath to guard and protect the Constitution of the United States – when they, themselves, have no respect for nor understanding of the document. 

We have become a nation of immoral, Godless, lazy people; who rally around those who openly sin against the Word of God and who lie, cheat and steal as their standard operating procedure.  God-loving individuals are ridiculed and our government has aggressively moved to eliminate God from every area of public life.  We elect men and women to watch our country that we would not trust to watch our house or our children, much less our finances; and we do it over and over again, expecting better results each time. 

We elected and now have re-elected a President who openly defies the Constitution and believes and acts as though he is above the law.  He surrounds himself with anti-America individuals.  He uses our money to buy votes and picks the winners and losers based on who supports his campaigns.  He uses his position of power to have the administration punish those who oppose his agenda.  He is the bully in D.C. and anyone who dares to stand up to his tactics is beat down by his rhetoric and that of his allies in the media and various departments of the administration. 

The opposition leaders in Congress appear to fear the President and continue to act tough but always cave to his stronger personality.  They appear to have forgotten that Congress is a co-equal branch of government to the President.  They lack the fortitude to wage a political war and get in the trenches for the long haul of the battle.  The white flag of surrender always seems to appear just before the battle gets heated.  Experience has shown the President that he will always win as he is the only one in the battle who will not give up in the face of criticism.

We are a long ways away from the original Liberty which was won at such a tremendous cost.  The oppression we live under is far worse than what the American Revolution was fought over.  We are the “frog in the frying pan” and we have accepted a little more heat each year and it appears we will never jump out to save ourselves or our nation. 

Where do we stand where Liberty is concerned?  We are on the edge of the cliff with the rocks crumbling and one foot already over the edge.  “Liberty” has already lost much of its meaning and is almost dead.  We are the generation that will pass America onto the next in worse shape than we found her.  For that we should be ashamed!

There is just one question left, before Liberty is dead and buried forever; are we going to do anything to try to save her? 

If you despise soft-core despotism, you will just love hard-core tyranny!  It is just around the corner and has its sights set on YOU! 

Thursday, April 18, 2013

WHY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?


WHY A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?

RIGHTS & AUTHORITY

By:  Mike Foil

 

The War for Independence had just been won.  Thirteen sovereign States were operating under the Articles of Confederation, which had already been shown to be inadequate.  The leaders called for a second constitutional convention to “fix” the Articles of Confederation. 

When these men gathered in Philadelphia, in May of 1787, it did not take long to realize that the Articles of Confederation did not need to be revised, but needed to be replaced.  During this convention, the men produced a proposed Constitution for the United States of America. 

First of all, what is the Constitution? 

The delegates to the convention drew up an agreement; which, if ratified (agreed to and adopted) by the States; would establish a Federal Government.  The Constitution lays out the rules for the operation of such a government.  That’s pretty much it.  The various articles in the Constitution detail what each of the three branches of government are permitted to do.  We refer to the list of duties or powers of the government as the enumerated powers.  In other words, this document established a new government for a few, very specific purposes. 

The Constitution was submitted to the 13 states for debate and possible ratification.  Once approved (by at least nine), a Federation would be formed including all States who ratified the Constitution.  Any State that did not vote to ratify would not be a part of the Federation.  Each State maintained the power to decide its own direction as relates to this matter.  Remember, the States are sovereign and independent. 

Why would independent and sovereign States vote to form a general government, under a Constitution, which would preside over a confederation of the States? 

During the few years that had passed, after declaring independence, it became clear that the individual states could not do certain things separately, as well as a general government could do on their behalf.  The States formed a confederation (alliance) whereby, jointly they would be better able to perform certain aspects of running a country. 

ALL other duties, aspects and powers of government; the States and the people reserved to themselves. 

Who were the parties to the Constitution or the constitutional convention? 

The parties with the authority to call for a convention and to implement the Constitution, which would establish the general government for the United States, were the 13 States and them alone.  The Federal Government was NOT a party to the Constitution. 

It is important that we understand this issue.  The States, through ratification, agreed to the specific document that listed the limited powers of the general government that they (the States) were establishing.  The general government had no say in the convention, the wording of the Constitution, the powers granted by the States, the restrictions to the power of the general government, the debate or the approval.  It could not, as it did not exist prior to ratification by the States. 

The 13 States created the general government, which is the creature designed by the States in the Constitution.  As the creature, it does not have the authority to alter the rules and guidelines approved by its creators.  It only has the power to do those things written in the Constitution, no more. 

Who defines the limits on governmental power?

Along this same line, the creature does not have the authority to define the rules under which it operates.  Only the parties to the formation of the government have that power.  This is the reason that the government cannot add or alter amendments to the Constitution on its own.  A proposed amendment is submitted to the various States for their approval.  If the States reject a proposed amendment, there is nothing the government can do about it.  The States retained the authority over defining the power of the general government.  They approved a Federal Government to operate on their behalf in areas of granted authority, only. 

This understanding, where the States decided the power and authority of the general government, sheds light on a decision where the Supreme Court decided that they are the final authority as to what is and is not constitutional and what the powers or limits on power are as relates to itself and the other two branches of government.  What is wrong with this declaration of final authority?  The States did not produce or approve a document which would establish a government which would then set its own boundaries and dominate over them in any and all areas which the government chooses.  The Supreme Court is legally bound by the restrictions, set forth in the Constitution, as to what power it has and the limits beyond which it is not allowed to expand.  It does not have the authority to expand its own power. 

In order to make this perfectly clear, the 10th Amendment was added to the Constitution.  It states:  “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  The wording in the Constitution, as ratified, made this clear; but the States wanted it to be stated in writing so there would be no confusion as to the restrictions on the general government’s power. 

Notice that our country is called the United States of America.  There is a reason for the use of the word “United”.  We did not form a country where the States lost their independence or sovereignty.  We created a government to do only the things which would be done better as a whole and not as 13 individual states. 

We delegated only “few and defined” powers to the federal government. These are the “enumerated powers” listed in the Constitution. These enumerated powers concern:

  • Military defense, international commerce & relations;
  • Control of immigration and naturalization of new citizens;
  • Creation of a uniform commercial system: Weights & measures, patents & copyrights, money based on gold & silver, bankruptcy laws, mail delivery & some road building; and
  • With some of the Amendments, protect certain civil rights and voting rights (for blacks, women, citizens who don’t pay taxes, and citizens 18 years and older).

It is only with respect to the “enumerated powers” that the federal government has lawful authority over the Country at large!!!  All other powers are “reserved to the several States” and The People.

Why do we have the Bill of Rights?

Not only did the States want the 10th Amendment to be put in writing but they had several other issues they wanted to be in print, also.  This was intended to make it very clear to the new government that they were not to withhold or restrict the rights of the people or the authority of the States.  Almost immediately, the States ratified the Bill of Rights, which includes the first ten amendments.

“The Bill of Rights” is somewhat misleading for a name or title to these amendments.  It has the implication that these amendments granted or are the source of these rights mentioned within the amendments.  These amendments do not grant any rights to the people.  What they do is prohibit the government from messing with these rights. 

If we did not gain these rights from the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, or the Federal Government; where did the people get their rights?  When did the people gain their rights?  The answer lies in the understanding proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence, which states: 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

Did you catch that?  Our rights come from God.  They predate the government and the Constitution.  They existed prior to the Declaration of Independence.  The Bill of Rights was added to restrict government.  Examples are found in the first amendment, “Congress shall make no law…” and in the second, “…shall not be infringed.” 

Can the Federal Government restrict our rights?

Since the people did not receive their rights from the government, the government has no right to take them away or restrict them.  Notice also, in the above quote, one of the reasons the States formed the general government was “to secure these rights”.  Secure them, not attempt to restrict them on every turn. 

The Federal Government has no Constitutional authority to limit our rights in any fashion.  The Supreme Court does not have the authority to define, for us, what our rights are and are not.  We The People, through our States, created the Federal Government and it was not so that they would grow and dominate us in all things whatsoever. 

The Constitution established a government to serve the States and the people.  They work for us, not the other way around.  The ultimate political authority in our system is us, WE THE PEOPLE – we are the “pure original fountain of all legitimate political authority” (Federalist No. 22, last para). 

What is the remedy for usurpation of power by the Federal Government?

The Framers of the Constitution were very clear as to what should be done when the Federal Government overstepped its lawful authority.  This situation was answered in the Federalist papers, which is a collection of articles written by some of the same men who helped write the Constitution and were there for the debates.  They were offering explanations for the various questions and concerns presented during the ratification process.

If a new law was passed, which was a bad law, but dealt with an issue under which the Federal Government did have authority to operate; the remedy was through the courts (as the Supreme Court was given the authority to deal with issues under the Constitution).  If not solved that way, the remedy was for the people to vote in new people who would correct the injustice previously done.

If either the President or members of the Supreme Court were responsible for acts which violated the restrictions placed on them by the Constitution, it is the responsibility of the Congress to impeach the offending parties and remove them from office or the Court.  (You may be thinking that justices on the Supreme Court are appointed for life terms.  But, you would be in error.  The Constitution states that they are appointed for a term where they exhibit “good behavior”.  Violating the Constitution is not good behavior and if they have done so, they should be impeached.)

If a new law was passed, but was outside the legal authority of the Constitution, this was considered to be usurpation by the Federal Government.  Per the Founders, any such law was to be treated as no law whatsoever.  The Government does not have legal authority to make laws which are in areas reserved to the States or the people by the Constitution.  When they do so, the law is invalid.  It is also usurpation for the Government to make laws restricting our rights.

The method to be used by the States to deal with usurpation, other than through elections, is nullification.  This is a beautiful concept which is perfectly suited to be the remedy whereby the States protect and defend the People from tyranny and usurpation. 

What is nullification?

Simply stated, nullification is the process whereby a State acts to formally nullify (invalidate) a Federal law, rule, executive order, or federal court decision which that State believes to be unconstitutional.  This is the tool States are to use to keep the Federal Government from overstepping its authority and harming the People or the States in general.  This is an act which works to “secure” our rights. 

Some have argued that nullification is not a valid tool to be used by States.  If not, then how are States to deal with a general government which has over-reached and has imposed tyrannical laws on the people? 

Remember, it is the States that created the Federal Government and it is the States that have the authority to rein this government in to its proper realm of operation.  Without the weapon of nullification, States would be helpless to control the monster they created. 

 

For a more detailed explanation of the above issues, visit the blog by Publius Huldah at:
http://publiushuldah.wordpress.com/

In her articles is a wealth of information and an education on the Constitution. 

Wednesday, April 10, 2013

The Frog in the Frying Pan

The Frog in the Frying Pan
 
Frog + Frying Pan + Water + Heat = Dinner

The story goes:  take a frog and drop it in a pan of boiling water and he will jump right back out.  Drop the frog in a pan of cool water and slowly turn up the heat.  It will sit right there and eventually boil to death.

Folks, we are the proverbial “frog”.  We have been “gigged” and are sitting in the pan complaining about how hot it is getting. 

A few decades ago, if we were taken from where we were to where we are right now, we would have jumped right back out and saved ourselves.  But, while we were busy catching flies for our own supper, someone snatched us out of our cool pond and placed us in the cool water of the frying pan.  The few, who noticed the difference, looked around and said to no one in particular, “This isn’t so bad, I have clean water and I am sure plenty of bugs will come within striking distance.  I’ll be just fine right here.”  As the heat increased, first came relaxation and letting down the guard.  That was followed by lethargy as it began to get hot.  Once the water began to boil, it was too late to jump out and the frog slowly boiled. 

I don’t know about you, but I am beginning to see little bubbles rising in the water around me.  I feel sweat on my hairless brow and still, for some strange reason, sit here complaining about the heat and who it must be that keeps turning it up more and more.  I converse with other frogs about how bad it is and who might come to save us, but while we all sitting here and waiting, the water just got hotter.  We are now on the verge of boiling!

Americans slept while the Socialists (and worse) were out gigging for frogs, pulling out the pan and turning up the heat.  Over the years we have been over-burdened with national debt, watched while our defensive ability has been diminished, witnessed the stoking of racial fire and class hatred, experienced the decline in our public education system, been amazed by the mushrooming welfare system and ever increasing rolls receiving benefits, suffered the continual eroding of our Rights and individual liberties, observed our nation losing the positive relationship and reputation we once enjoyed with our allies, watched the world rejoice over our sorrow and pain, and tried to keep our heads above water while our society has turned lawless.

We have a government which believes the solution to every problem is increasing the heat.  Time is of the essence!  We have to jump or boil.    

Monday, February 18, 2013

UNALIENABLE RIGHTS


UNALIENABLE RIGHTS:  Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness

These three are listed in the Declaration of Independence as being among the Rights which were endowed by the Creator on each person.  It states that we believe that “all men are created equal…”  This is included in the very first sentence explaining why the Americans have declared themselves to be free and independent from Britain.  This sentence is the foundational reason why our Government was established by the people, “…to secure these rights…”  The proper role of the Federal Government is to protect our Rights. 

Why was it not written as “Life, Liberty and Happiness”?  The founding fathers believed that God has given each of us the right to life and the right to be free.  They did not believe that God gave us the right to be happy.  There is considerable difference between the right to be happy and the right to pursue happiness.  We hear much about equality or the right to equal outcomes.  “Sharing the wealth” and “fair share” both relate to this philosophy of equal results.  Neither God nor the Declaration of Independence tells us that we are guaranteed or promised equality in outcome.  What we do have the right to is opportunity.  We each have the right to pursue happiness, as we see fit, as long as our pursuit does not infringe on another’s rights.  Whether you succeed and become happy in your pursuit is not guaranteed or implied.  That is where the challenge enters the picture and your own determination, talents and hard work can be what causes you to succeed or fail. 

Government was never intended to be an equalizer so that those who failed have similar results to those who worked harder and succeeded.  They were never supposed to take from the successful and redistribute their earnings among those who did not succeed.  Those who did well were to be an example for the rest as what is possible if you keep trying.  It was hard work that made America great, one person after another achieving their goals.  No nation will become or remain great where the successful are punished by their government and the unsuccessful are rewarded by the same.  This robs men’s souls of their initiative and drive and fosters a dependency on government. 

We were created equal, but where we end up depends on each of us.

Friday, January 18, 2013

KEEP AND BEAR ARMS


 Can Congress legally pass a law to restrict “rights”?

We need an understanding of “rights” and the role of government.  You DO NOT have a “constitutional right” to have a gun and the 2nd Amendment did not give you the right to bear arms.

“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” 2nd Amendment.

This does not say the government, constitution or this amendment gives you the right to keep and bear arms.  The 2nd Amendment, just like others, does not bestow a right upon the people, but prohibits the government from infringing on your rights.  Your “right” to keep and bear arms, to free speech, etc.; “shall not be infringed”! 

The 1st Amendment begins “Congress shall make no law…”  This amendment does not give the right to free speech, it prohibits the government from interfering in the rights we already had.

Neither the Constitution nor the government gave us these rights.  Our rights preceded both the document and the government.  The Constitution was written to establish a general government for a very few, specific reasons.  The Bill of Rights was added making it clear the government did not have the power to restrict “rights”.

If our rights did not come from the government or the Bill of Rights, where did we get them?  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”  (Declaration of Independence-DOI)  Our “rights” come from God.  They predate the Constitution and the government. 

God gave us “unalienable” rights.  This means that no one can take them; they are yours unless YOU relinquish them! 

The DOI goes on to say, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”  The government was formed by the people for the purpose of securing our rights. 

Our government has passed laws doing what they were forbidden to do.  They took the rights that people gave up.  The more rights we give away, the less liberty we enjoy. 

“A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever." (John Adams)

“They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin)

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" (Samuel Adams)

America sends our military to fight in other countries defending their liberty.  Meanwhile, we have been asleep while our government has been stealing our liberty, bit-by-bit.  As John Adams said, once we lose liberty, we will not get it back! 

Sunday, July 29, 2012

RESTRICTED LIBERTIES


RESTRICTED LIBERTIES


Some things involve “shades of grey”.  “Should we do this or do that?”  But, there is not a “right vs. wrong” argument in every decision we make.  Our days are filled with such choices.

However, there are other areas where we are dealing with black and white situations; is it right or wrong, moral or immoral?  Is it okay to steal from your neighbor?  No, it is not!  We do not have to debate the question and weigh the consequences; the clear and obvious answer is “No”.  There are some areas where society has turned morality upside-down.  What should be considered as clearly wrong, is now accepted behavior.  Does this make it right or moral, now?  No, it makes society wrong and immoral.

How about “freedom”?  Does this subject fall under the shades of grey or the black and white?

Definition from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:  LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense… A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This [natural and unlimited] liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society; or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. Civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.

The (civil) liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the (natural) liberty of others.  [Words in parenthesis added for clarification, bold added for emphasis].

“Freedom” or “Liberty”, in its truest sense would most line up with the first definition, which states, “A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.”  Natural liberty” would closely resemble this concept.  It is the state where someone does as he pleases without anyone to restrict him.  As soon as a government is added to this state; some portion of natural liberties, formerly enjoyed, are taken away.  In other words, a man’s actions now face some form of restrictions due to the government.  People who experience natural liberty, in its fullest sense, would exist in a society where there are no laws and every man is out for himself – doing whatever he wants.

Under some forms of government, “civil liberty” resides.  “…the liberty of men in a state of society…, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation.”  [Italics and bold added for emphasis]

America was founded and the Constitution was written to provide a country falling under the concept of “civil liberty”.  When the Declaration of Independence was written, they acknowledged that our “rights” come from God; not from man, not from government and not from the laws of man. 

From the Declaration of Independence (DOI):

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” [Bold added for emphasis]

When the Constitution was written, it was still understood that “rights” come from God.  The Constitution did not grant “rights” to the people.  The “Bill of Rights” was not added to the Constitution to endow the people with the stated list of rights.  These ten amendments spell out restrictions upon the government to not trample on the rights of the people.  The government could not grant us rights that we already possessed and which were given to us by God.  By “unalienable rights”, is meant that these rights (given to the people by God) cannot be taken away by others or by government.  As our rights pre-existed the Constitution, they are clearly not granted by the Constitution or by some federal court. 

The government of the United States was fashioned to protect the rights of the people.  The Constitution, which was created by the people, was written to provide clear and precise limits and restrictions upon the government which would be formed under the Constitution.  The country was formed under the concept of “civil liberties” (as defined above). The people submitted to the supreme law of the land and granted a government the power to perform the specified list of duties contained in the Constitution.  For these specific areas, the people would voluntarily have their liberty restricted for the sake of a civilized society.

With the liberty enjoyed by the people in America, a new sense of freedom was found on the Earth.  No country in history had been established by the people and for the people, where the people maintained the sovereignty over the government.  Hence, “…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” (DOI).

From the beginning of our newly formed government, there existed a concern among the founders, that due to the nature of man (greed and lust for power), that liberty would be under attack.  America and “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams.  Their concerns were well founded as the exact thing they worried about began to take place, almost immediately.  For over 200 years, the leaders in government have been adding burdens and further restrictions on the people which were not authorized in the Constitution.  We have expanded well beyond the portion of the definition for “civil liberty”, which states; “…only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society…”

We no longer live under the concept of [civil] liberty.  That was abandoned long ago.  We now live under a concept of restricted liberties, which is not freedom and is not liberty.  Our society now resides under a form of tyranny.

From Webster’s 1828 Dictionary:  TYR'ANNY, n.

Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government.  [Bold added for emphasis]

America has passed from unrestricted freedom in a civil society to unrestricted government operating outside of the limits of the Constitution.  We have a government that is out of control.  Under this government, we have lost our liberty.  What we now have is a system where those in power dictate the minutest parts of our lives. 

So, what happened to “individual sovereignty”?  It is a vanishing cloud of vapor.  What about the concept of “individual rights”?  We are guilty of giving them away for one purpose or lie after another.  We have traded our liberty for a promise of safety or security.  Whether it was for protection against an enemy from abroad or for the supposed security granted by social programs; either way, we are guilty of falling for the rhetoric of those who have ulterior designs against us, the ones they are supposed to be serving.  Through our laziness, ignorance and lack of attention; we now enjoy restricted liberty, which is bondage.

The Declaration of Independence; which claimed, on our behalf, freedom; also provided the remedy for when our government has gone too far and will not come back. 

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Is this the next step to be taken?  I do not believe we are quite there, yet; though we are speedily heading in that direction.  At some point, in the near future, if we cannot gain the attention of those in Washington; we will have to make a choice.  We can either step up and take our country back from those who have an agenda to destroy its basic foundation and form, those whose greed and lust for power are more important to them than the survival of the United States as a federation of free and independent states; or we can cower and submit, handing over the last shreds of our God-given rights. 

America is not in a state of “shades of grey”, we are facing a crossroads of right or wrong, good or bad, freedom or bondage.  As Patrick Henry took his stand, he made the following statement: 

“Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Can we bring our government back from the brink of our destruction, before it is too late? 

Wednesday, July 4, 2012


To Be Free!

By: Mike Foil



            July 4, 1776; was like any other day across the thirteen colonies along the eastern part of North America.  For most people, who were subjects of the British Crown, it was business as usual.  There was a level of tension at various locations among the colonies, such as in Boston; but to the majority of the population, it was an ordinary day; that is, with a most notable exception.

            In Philadelphia, a gathering of men were reading over the final version of a document which had the potential of setting their world on fire.  These men had concluded that the only way for them, their families and friends, and fellow countrymen to experience self-government and liberty was to declare the colonies to be free and independent states.  It was, in fact, a declaration of war with England.

            The Declaration of Independence launched what became known as the “American experiment.”  It set America on a path unlike any prior nation.  Central to this experiment were the concepts of inalienable rights and self-government.  They not only ventured into unexperienced territory, politically; they declared that the truths, on which the foundation was being built, were obvious and undeniable. 

            These men acknowledged that God, the creator, is the source of their rights; and that these rights, as such, cannot be taken away by another.  Among these inseparable rights are the right to life, the right to live free and the right for individuals to be free to pursue their own happiness.

            In order to protect the individual’s rights, the people formed a government which would obtain its limited powers only by the consent of those people it would govern. 

            These men acted out of conviction as each was keenly aware that by affixing his signature to that declaration, it could cost them everything.  Still, they willingly pledged to each other, “our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”  Why would they take such a dangerous step?  Because, they trusted in God for their protection and believed He was leading them in the pursuit of liberty. 

Saturday, August 6, 2011

Free and Independent States

On July 4, 1776; Abraham Clark, a delegate from New Jersey to the Continental Congress, wrote "Our Congress Resolved to Declare the United Colonies Free and independent States."

Of course, this is the same day that this group of men issued the Declaration of Independence.  The day before; on July 3, 1776: John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail Adams,
“Yesterday the greatest question was decided which ever was debated in America, and a greater perhaps never was nor will be decided among men. A resolution was passed, without one dissenting Colony, ‘that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States….’ You will see, in a few days, a Declaration setting forth the causes which have impelled us to this mighty revolution, and the reasons which will justify it in the sight of God and man.”
Can you imagine what it would have been like to be an observer to the Continental Congress? 



This room, in Philadelphia, was full of men with a vision for a nation.  After repeated attempts to reconcile with the British King and Parliament; they, collectively, chose independence for the Colonies.  They declared the 13 Colonies to be Free and Independent States.

The enormity of the decision was recognized by those men who had labored over the decision and the wording for the Declaration of Independence (DOI).  They were under no illusion that Britain would accept the loss of rule over the Colonies without a war.  The last sentence in the Declaration reveals the commitment each accepted: 
"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
Then 56 delegates signed their names to the document.

They felt it necessary to explain to Britain and the world, the reasons for such a decision.  The first sentence introduced all readers, foreign and domestic, to one of the most powerful documents ever written by man: 
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Following the first sentence of the DOI, is the preamble; which is also referred to as the "right of revolution":
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Some have argued that the "right of revolution" implies that it must fall within the "rights" in existing laws.  As this would not allow for a positive outcome against the grievances resulting from the acts of a government, it has been taken further to state that it is not only the right of the people to overthrow tyranny and despotism, but it is the duty of the people to do so.

What happens when a group of people decide that it is time to dissolve political bands with the government which, up until that point, has been their government?  What brings those people to that point?  In other words, what is the cause and effect?

Our young country already has two examples of this very situation:  the American Revolution with the War of Independence and the War of Secession between the States.  In both cases, the party doing the dissolving believed that the government was infringing upon their rights and had done so to such an extent that it was no longer tolerable.  As stated in the DOI, "...that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves..."  We will tolerate abuse up to a breaking (dissolving) point.  The effect of a dissolution of this magnitude is typically war.  That, along with the rights being trampled, are the two common aspects of these two examples. 

"Free and independent States" - Are we still free and are the States still independent?  From the beginning of the United States of America, there has been an erosion of liberty and independence.  Instead of the People being sovereign over the government, the Government now rules the citizens.  Instead of the States exercising broad and innumerable powers and the Federal Government being restricted and limited in the powers granted to them by the People, we now have the States subject to the Federal Government and Washington dictating to the States what they are allowed to do. 

How did this happen and why have we not stopped the trampling of our rights by our own Government which is supposed to be subject to us and the Constitution?  There are multiple answers.  First is the statement quoted above, "...more disposed to suffer..."  We are basically a peace loving people and want government to just do its job and leave us alone to pursue happiness.  Second, too many in our country do not realize or understand how our rights have been restricted, often with our own blessing.  Many are ignorant of the unalienable rights they possess and are willing for government to infringe upon those rights and destroy the boundary which was designed to limit government.  And third, a large portion of our population has been bought.  They are on the dole of the Government.  They either work directly or indirectly for the government or are on the receiving end of some benefit bestowed by Washington.  They have become "single-issue" voters and protest against any move by any person or party to withdraw the hand that is feeding them. 

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."  Benjamin Franklin

Will there be a breaking point or a time of dissolution for the American People?  Or, will we remain "disposed to suffer" right into slavery?

Monday, July 4, 2011

A Republic, If...

As Benjamin Franklin emerged, after the completion of the writing of the Constitution; a woman asked of him, “Sir, what have you given us?” He responded, “A Republic, ma’am if you can keep it.”


“A Republic…” What is a Republic? Is it the same as a Democracy? If not, how are they different? Which form of government do we the people have for the United States? Is one form of government better than the other?

Those are the questions I had and maybe some of you have wondered the same things. Rarely do you hear that the U.S. is a Republic. Most people refer to it and believe it to be a Democracy. Actually, we may have heard that we are a Republic more than we realize but it has mostly gone unnoticed:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands…"

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican form of Government…” U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4.

To begin with, whether we are a Republic or a Democracy has nothing to do with the political parties of the Republicans or Democrats.


A Republic Form of Government:

Republic defined (Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary):
“A… state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person.”

A Republic is a nation where the people, individually retain the sovereign power. These individuals elect representatives to exercise that power in the operation of government. These representatives are responsible to those people whom they represent and must govern according to and within in the limits of the law.

Key components are that the individuals retain the power and the law restricts the representatives running the government. The government must operate according to the law; and in our case, the supreme law of the land – the Constitution.


A Democracy:

Democracy defined (Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary):
“Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation.”

A Democracy is a nation where the people, collectively, rule. Note that the definition does not include the word “law”. In a Democracy the majority rules. As the majority changes, so do the rules.


Our Status:

As mentioned above, Benjamin Franklin proclaimed that the Founding Fathers had formed a Republic as the form of government for the United States. They had written a Constitution as the “law” under which this Republic would function. They expressed grave concern over the country letting the Republic slip away into becoming a Democracy. They actually referred to a democracy as a “mobocracy”.

The Founders did not want our country to be controlled by “majority rule”. They wanted the Constitution to be the set of rules which controlled the government and the country.

Some in America do not want to be bound by the restrictions in the Constitution and that is precisely why they promote the idea that the Constitution is a “living document”. The phrase, “living document”, does not sound bad if you mean that the Constitution is alive and well and still keeping watch over zealous politicians. But, that is not what they mean. “Living document” means that it is flowing and ever-changing to meet the current needs and desires of the country. In other words, they do not want the Constitution to impose restrictions on their agenda for America.


“A Republic, if…”

Why was Mr. Franklin and other Founders concerned about the Republic remaining a Republic? In order for society to function under the umbrella of a limited government, there must be a rule of law. This law must be set and difficult to alter. It cannot be that a majority can upset the law on a whim. A civil order is required for the people to exist with the God-given rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Where the current majority of the citizens make all the rules, the rights of the minority will not be protected. Equal rights require steady laws. In his First Inaugural Address (1801), Thomas Jefferson said:  “All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable: that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

Within a Republic the individual people retain sovereignty. We, as individuals, exercise our sovereignty as we elect representatives to go to Washington for the purpose of running the government according to the law – Constitution. We expect our representatives to only function in a manner which protects the individual’s natural rights. They are “natural rights” as they were bestowed on us by our Creator. These rights do not come to us from government and were not established by the Constitution. Natural rights predate the Constitution. This document was written to protect those rights and to restrict the government from infringing upon those rights.

With the Constitution being the supreme law of the land and written to limit what government can do, mere logic insists that the Constitution must have a fixed meaning and firm boundaries. If it were otherwise, such as a “living document”, where the very government it seeks to limit, decides where those changing lines will be drawn; it gravitates to a set of flexible rules where those who rule choose the degree of flexibility. In other words, it ceases to protect natural rights and is no longer the law of a Republic. That is why the Constitution was written with a specific list of what the government is permitted to do – enumerated powers.

In a Republic the people are not obligated to the government, but the government is obligated to the people. The people chose to form the government for specific duties and that creation of the people is subject to those creators and must abide within the limits of the Constitution.

In a Democracy, the power lies in the whole body of the citizens and the majority controls power. The citizens become obligated to the government to do as it determines. At any given time, the group that finds itself in a minority position will only have those privileges which the majority grants. Those granted privileges to the minority are referred to as civil rights. They will change as the will of the majority shifts back and forth. There is no line in the sand, no boundaries on government, and no law restricting the rulers from imposing their desires on those in the minority. A Democracy is where the majority rules as a dictator and whatever they decide becomes mandatory. The Founders knew this and this is why they called a Democracy, a “mobocracy”.

In a Republic, the people own the government and its agencies. In a Democracy, the government and its agencies own the people. When the people established the Constitution they did not give up their natural rights. America was founded based on the concept of self-government. We elect representatives to perform specific tasks on our behalf, not to control us and strip us of our rights. The representatives, the government and its agencies were established by the people to act as our agents, on our behalf, for our protection and benefit. They are to represent us, not rule us.

Republic – The People live with and enjoy the natural rights given to us by God.
Democracy – The Citizens live with the civil rights granted to them by their government.

A Republic is a government which functions within the framework of the law (fixed principles), in our case the Constitution. It protects the rights of the individual and respects property rights. This law restricts the government from violating the individual’s rights and prevents the majority from doing the same.

Both forms of government can have voting by the people. The main differences lie in whether sovereignty lies with the individual or with the majority, and whether there is rule by law or rule by majority.

This is the reason We the People require our representatives to take and oath to defend and protect the Constitution. It is too bad that many of those same people, once they have sworn that oath, completely ignore the same. A Republic only continues to function as long as the representatives, elected by the individuals, exercise their duties within the express limits and restrictions spelled out in the Constitution. When the allegiance of the elected is swayed by polls and pleasing the majority in order to win the next election, the Republic dies and the Democracy begins the inevitable slide towards despotism.

The Founders chose to give us a Republic form of government as it was the best, of all of the choices, in securing the rights of the individual and controlling the majority.

Can we keep it? 

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Paul Revere - My Story

Paul Revere – My Story



Introduction

For some reason, Boston just seemed to attract controversy. It is not that we wanted to be the center of attention, knowing it would bring the wrath of the King upon the people and our little town. But, nonetheless, trouble continued to find us and the center of a revolution is where we found ourselves.

I, though politically minded, was just a businessman. Living right in Boston in a three-story home, I operated a silversmith shop that was only a couple blocks from my home. Being somewhat of a perfectionist, my wares were sought after and I was able to make a decent living for the support of my family.

It may have been that my business being prosperous was one of the reasons I envisioned the unlimited potential that existed in the Colonies if only His Majesty would allow us to pursue our dreams less hindered. And, it was not just me, many of my friends and acquaintances were also growing restless concerning a steady barrage of regulations, restrictions and taxes being levied on the Colonies by England.

Several of us would routinely meet over a meal or drink and the subject would inevitably resort to politics and liberty. Most of us; including John Hancock (merchant), John Adams (lawyer), Benjamin Edes (journalist), and Sam Adams (a natural leader of protesters); were middle-class people. We, and many others at the time, were experiencing a surge in the concept of independence for the Colonies. This wave was spreading throughout most of the thirteen regions and the restlessness was growing among the common people.

Don’t get me wrong, everyone was not in agreement as to the direction that should be taken. Looking back, it seems that around one third wanted to leave well-enough alone and let England rule. Another third were so busy surviving and tending to their business that they chose to remain neutral in the controversy. It was just that the last third of us were keen on the idea of an experiment in freedom that was foreign to the modern world.

There were many “what ifs” running through our minds and bouncing across the tavern tables. What if the Colonies were to break away from England and declare their independence? What if we actually chose our leaders and they were responsible to answer back to us? What if England took all of her soldiers home? What if the burden of taxation was lifted and the level of regulation was gone so that we could prosper according to our ability and hard work?

It seemed that the more we shared ideas, the bigger the dreams became. Once the fire of freedom is set in the hearts of men, there is no happy retreat back into any form of slavery. The amazing thing is that if the King had recognized the direction England’s subjects were taking, he could have compromised and both sides could have been content. It was not a hatred of England that drove us, but a desire for freedom and self-rule. If he had let us have more say in the selection of our governors, more input concerning our laws, less burden under taxes, and a general level of respect from across the Atlantic; war probably would have been prevented. He would still have his colonies as the widespread support would not have grown for separation and we would have enjoyed an increased level of liberty. But, “win-win” was not in the cards being dealt.


Background

For you to better understand my story, it would be prudent to understand who I am and how I came to be the one telling you this portion of our history.

I am a man of average size and possess what is slowly turning from brown to gray hair. My father was sent from France in 1715, at the age of 13 and arrived at Boston in 1716. Back then, he still used his French name of Apollos Rivoire. Being a young man in a new land, he found work with John Coney, a local goldsmith. Upon the death of Mr. Coney in 1722, my father set up his own shop in Dock Square.

Sometime during the 1720’s he took on, what he later described as his “American name”, Paul Revere. My father was proud to live in the New World and learned, early on, that the limits as to what he could do would only be established by he, himself.

In 1729, he married my Mother, Deborah Hitchbourn. They both worked hard, enjoyed each other’s company and soon started a family. The first-born was my sister, Deborah, born in 1732. I was next in line, born in December of 1734. Yes, both of us were named after our parents as that was customary then and still is now. There ended up being seven more children born into the family, but only seven of us lived to become adults.

Another custom was for the children, as they reached sufficient age, to begin helping the parents – girls at home and boys either in their father’s business or on his farm, etc. My family was no exception and as a teenager I began working in the shop, learning the trade of being a goldsmith and silversmith. I also attended school at North Writing School.

When I was 19, my father passed away. This left me, the oldest son, to be the main support for the family. I took over the family business and continued to operate as a silversmith. I not only learned the value of being a hard worker from my father, but I learned to follow the character he demonstrated in his life. He, being Protestant by faith, saw that we attended church and I continued this practice with my family.

In 1756, a couple years after the death of my father, I volunteered to fight the French in the French and Indian War. Being a man of character and being a hard worker, my superiors offered me a commission and I served as a second lieutenant in the colonial artillery. We entered battle at Lake George, New York.

Soon, I was back home to Boston and married Sarah Orne in 1757. Prior to her passing in May of 1773, our eighth child (Isannah, who also died in September of 1773) was born. One other had also passed away in her first year.

Being a widower and having six children, the oldest being 15 (Deborah) and the next 13 (Paul); I married Rachel Walker in October of the same year (1773). Rachel and I also had eight children. Only the oldest (Joshua) was born prior to the beginning of the war. Later on, as we had the other seven children, three died while very young. I was determined to have a son named John. Two of the babies who died young were each named John and it was not until 1787 that I had a son who lived and carried that name. Another son was named after one of my dear friends and co-patriots here in Boston, Joseph Warren.

While married to Sarah, we moved from a small home along Clark’s Wharf to a two-story home with a three-story addition. The frame home was near my shop on the North End, over-looking North Square. Not only was this convenient but it was also a home that would house a large family. This home was near the water of the harbor.

As my reputation improved, my business grew and I soon employed help. We produced a quality product for a fair price. I also took up printing in my shop. One of the most important times for this ability was right after the Boston Massacre. I printed a flyer showing an engraving of the scene where the British soldiers fired on the residents of Boston gathered to protest the actions of England. Five of my countrymen, most of which I knew very well, died as a result. We distributed the flyers around the general area and they helped to convince the colonists to take sides against the occupying army. This event took place on March 5, 1770. Over the next few years the tension grew, not only in Boston, but in the colonies, in general.

(The above mentioned flyer showing the Boston Massacre, which I printed and sold, brought a shadow upon my character. One, Henry Pelham, had drawn the same scene and presented it to me. While I studied the drawing, I became aware of the potential this scene held for uniting the people behind the resistance. Based on Mr. Pelham’s drawing, I did another etching which I could use for making the prints and proceeded to use them as intended. When Mr. Pelham discovered that I was distributing the flyers, he became upset and accused me of taking advantage of him and his work.)

You are probably well aware that this same tension reached another point on December 16, 1773; when we held a little party for the tea-drinking British. We, the Sons of Liberty in Boston, had gathered at the Old South Meeting House earlier in the day to discuss the Tea Act and decide what to do about the three ships docked, full of bundles of tea. As we listened to speakers and had several discussions, we received a message from the Governor that the tea was to be unloaded. This was all we needed to determine our course of action. Samuel Adams delivered the line, “This meeting can do nothing more to save the country.” Some adorned Mohawk Indian attire and many of us proceeded to Griffin’s Wharf where the three ships were docked. We succeeded in tossing 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. You can imagine what the soldiers, who were camping at our Boston Commons, thought the next morning as they woke to find empty tea cases floating in the harbor.

I mentioned the “Son’s of Liberty”, which met at the Green Dragon Tavern. Sam Adams was instrumental in the organization of the men into this group. Our roles, as members, changed somewhat over time. The Boston group became only one, though the most famous, of many similar groups in other towns that served as an organization for action and a source for information. Sam Adams and John Hancock became two of the most vocal of the local men. Each of them also served on the Provincial Congress, with Hancock as the president, once it was organized in October of 1774. They began to gain unwanted attention of the British and the more things escalated, the more the officers wanted to silence them both.

We also formed the “Committee of Correspondence” which was responsible for disseminating written and verbal information, from Boston to patriots in other towns. I was not only a part of this committee, but had the job of being one of the riders who would deliver the information. William Dawes was another of the riders and we each had made several deliveries over a time span of a few years. I had been called on to make deliveries of letters to New York and Philadelphia, multiple times. I also took correspondence to Samuel Adams while he attended the Continental Congress in Massachusetts. There were several other rides that I made to various communities.

One message proved to be very important as later events unfolded. The British had ordered that there were to be no more shipments of gun powder or military stores to the colonies. England also had sent ships to reinforce Fort William and Mary at Portsmouth. As we learned of such events, I was sent to warn the patriots in that area of the need to storm the fort and seize the gun powder stored there, before the ships arrived with more troops. This trip produced the desired results and the men in the area were successful in obtaining a large quantity of gun powder. This proved very important as there were limited supplies, other than that, for use when the fighting broke out.

I mentioned that I named a son after a friend. Dr. Joseph Warren was another of our leaders here in Boston. On March 6, 1775; he delivered a speech to a gathering of men at the Old South Meeting House. The occasion was the fifth anniversary of the Boston Massacre. This event helped stir up the patriotism in our hearts and our countrymen, but also further upset the British command.

In early 1775, at the age of 40, I was one of thirty men who formed a committee and accepted the responsibility to secretly watch the British in Boston. In pairs, were would take turns watching the troops and patrolling the streets. We sought intelligence as to the plans of the enemy.

This finally paid off around midnight on Saturday, April 15th. It was noticed that various groups of soldiers were preparing for some sort of assignment. There was movement in some of their ships in the harbor and smaller boats were positioned near Boston Commons.


The Ride

The “ride” you are waiting to hear about was not the first made with similar warnings. On Sunday, April 16, 1775; Dr. Warren sent me to Lexington to deliver a message to Samuel Adams and John Hancock. At that time, they were both staying at the home of Rev. Jonas Clarke, who was married to a niece of John Hancock. Both were in that area due to attending meetings of the Provincial Congress that met in Concord, only a few miles further from Boston.

The message dealt with the expected movement of British troops (Regulars) and the expected goal of arresting or killing both Adams and Hancock and/or seizing the arms and supplies in Concord. With this warning, a group of around ten armed men guarded the home where they were staying and notice was sent to Concord to move as much as possible out of town, which they proceeded to do over the next couple days.

On Tuesday, April 18, 1775; General Thomas Gage issued orders to his men to march to Concord and seize and destroy the arms and supplies stored there. As General Gage and his troops were stationed in Boston and camped at Boston Commons, the secrecy of the mission was overcome and word got out that the troops would be on the move very soon.

As a part of the Sons of Liberty and being riders for the Committee of Correspondence, William Dawes and I were contacted to ride and issue a warning. About ten o’clock, Dr. Joseph Warren sent a messenger who found me at home. My wife, Rachel, understood the urgency of the situation and knew that I was the main rider used for such purposes as what was ahead of me that night. She, along with the older children, also realized the seriousness of my assignment. As we said goodbye, we both understood that before the night was over, I could be arrested or killed.

When I arrived at the home of Dr. Warren, he told me the intelligence indicated the British possibly had two missions. First, march to Lexington and place Samuel Adams and John Hancock under arrest. Second, march to Concord to seize and destroy the weapons, ammunition and supplies hidden there for use by the Minutemen.

As we were not absolutely sure as to what avenue of departure the troops would use to exit Boston, I had earlier come up with a signal to be used to let various people know whether they would be taken by barge to Cambridge, over Back Bay or exit Boston by way of Boston Neck. Most of Boston is located on a peninsula with the “neck” being the isthmus connecting it to the mainland. If the troops were to be ferried across the water to Cambridge, to the west of Boston Commons, it would actually be faster than if they marched around to exit the town by Boston Neck. Since one of the reasons to leave during the night was the desire to have a surprise arrival at Lexington, not marching out of town was another reason we believed they would go by water. Late in the day it had been observed that many soldiers had been gathering near the lower end of Boston Commons. This was further indication that they were preparing to leave and would go by boat across Back Bay.

There were two friends designated to row me across the Charles River to Charlestown, where I would depart on horseback, I desired to know for sure, by the time I departed Charlestown, which avenue the troops were taking. Plus, others had been made aware of the signal so the warning could be issued if I were arrested before leaving Boston. William Dawes was riding with the same message from Boston, exiting town on the neck. In order to improve the odds that at least one of us would make it to Lexington, we were to take different paths.

My plan was for a signal to be made from the steeple of Christ Church (also called the North Church). Robert Newman would hold one lantern if the troops were marching out of Boston by way of Boston Neck or two lanterns if they were crossing by water. As I was being rowed to Charlestown, the signal was given, using two lanterns.

Once across Charles River, we landed near Charlestown Battery and I proceeded into town where I met up with Colonel Conant, along with others. I explained what was happening. A horse was supplied from Deacon Larkin’s barn for me to use. Richard Devens, who was on the Committee of Safety, told me that earlier in the evening, he had witnessed nine or ten mounted officers going towards Lexington. After he returned to Charlestown and saw the signal, he had already sent a messenger to warn various men, including Adams and Hancock.

By the time I was able to begin my ride, it was about 11 o’clock and the moon was bright. I set out for Menotomy and Lexington, which was about ten miles away.

When I was just about past Charlestown Common, heading towards Cambridge, I noticed two mounted soldiers under a tree. One headed my way and the other went to cut me off further up the road. Both of them were armed. I cut my horse short and turned about. I rode as fast as I could, the horse at a full gallop, for Mistick Road. One soldier followed me about 300 yards before giving up the chase.

I was able to ride on to Lexington, through Medford and Menotomy spreading the warning that the Regulars were coming. In Medford, about 11:30, I woke the captain of the Minutemen and then alarmed every house on the way to Lexington. I finally arrived at Lexington where I gave the alarm to Mr. Adams and Col. Hancock around midnight. About half an hour after arriving, William Dawes arrived. I learned that the British officers who had been seen earlier in the evening heading towards Lexington had passed through town around 10 o’clock and went towards Concord. Rev. Clark told me that three men, from Lexington, had been sent to watch the movements of the officers.

Mr. Dawes and I then set off for Concord, which was another nine or ten miles. Soon we met up with a young man named Dr. Samuel Prescott, who was a high Son of Liberty from Concord and was heading home. We decided to warn the inhabitants along the road. Dr. Prescott knew many of them and they believed the warning we issued. About half way to Concord both of the others stopped at a house to warn the occupants and I went ahead. About 200 yards down the road I saw two officers who were armed with pistols and swords. I called back to William and Dr. Prescott to hurry and come. At that time, I saw four officers who rode up to me with their pistols drawn. They ordered me to stop. One said, “If you go an inch further, you are a dead man.” When William Dawes saw what was happening he turned his horse and rode back towards Lexington. Dr. Prescott caught up and the two of us attempted to get past them, to no avail. They ordered us into a pasture and said that if we did not go, they would blow our brains out. We proceeded to go into the pasture, through the opening in the fence they had made by removing the rails. As soon as we entered, Dr. Prescott said, “Put On!” and he took to the left, jumped a stone wall and made his way to Concord. I took to the right. My plan was to make it to the edge of the woods and flee on foot into the trees. About the time I reached the bottom of the pasture, six mounted officers appeared, seized my bridle and put their pistols to my chest. They ordered me to dismount, which I did. One of them, I assumed him to be in command, in a gentlemanly manner asked me where I came from and I told him. He inquired as to when I left and I told him. He appeared to be very surprised I had made it that far that fast. He wanted to know my name, to which I answered, “Revere”. He questioned, “Paul Revere?” and I told him that I was. As the other officers began to abuse me, he reassured me that I would come to no harm. Feeling fairly bold, I responded that they would miss their aim. He, feeling in complete control, assured me that they would not miss.

He then told me that they were waiting for some deserters that they expected to be coming down the road. I told him that I knew better and that I had alarmed the people in the houses all along the road. I told him I would have 500 men there soon, to which one of them told me they would have 1,500 men. The one in charge rode off to the road and told the ones who stopped me what I had said. They came back at a full gallop and one of them (who I was to learn was Major Mitchel of the 5th Regiment) put the barrel of his pistol to my head. He informed me he would ask me some questions and if I did not tell the truth he would blow my brains out. I told him that I was a man of truth. I asked him what right they had to stop me and make me a prisoner. He proceeded to ask me his questions and I answered him the same way I had before. After they searched me for pistols, he had me mount my horse. Once mounted, the Major took the reins from my hand and gave them to an officer on my right. He then ordered four other men that they had stopped, which included the three men from Lexington sent to watch them, to come out of the woods and then all of us were ordered to march.

Once on the road, the officers surrounded the prisoners and we headed towards Lexington at a quick pace. After about one mile, the reins were given to a sergeant who was ordered to shoot me if I tried to run. About half a mile from the meeting house in Lexington, we heard a shot, which I told the Major was a warning shot. He ordered the other four prisoners to dismount. The saddles and bridles were cut from their horses and they were told they were free to leave after their horses had been chased off. I asked the Major to dismiss me, but he refused and ordered us to begin marching again.

When we were close enough to see the Meeting House, we heard a volley of guns fired, which I supposed to be from the tavern as an alarm. The Major ordered us to halt. He asked me the distance to Cambridge and other questions. He had me dismount, gave my horse to the sergeant to ride, cut the saddle off of the sergeant’s horse and then they rode off down the road. This was about two o’clock in the morning of the 19th of April.

I went across the burying ground and some pastures to the house where I had left Mr. Adams and Col. Hancock and told them what had happened. Their friends advised them to leave the area for their own safety. I and Mr. Lowell, who was a clerk to Mr. Hancock, went with them for about two miles where we reached the house where they intended to stay in Burlington. After resting, Mr. Lowell and I returned to Buckman’s Tavern at Lexington. At the tavern we were told by Thaddeus Bowman that the troops were within one half mile. We went into the tavern to get a trunk of papers belonging to Col. Hancock. From a window I saw the troops and we hurried down to leave with the trunk. While passing through the militia gathered on Lexington Green (which is a triangle of open area bounded by roads) behind the Meeting House, I observed what looked to be 50 to 60 Minutemen gathered. As I passed through them I heard their commanding officer, Captain John Parker order the men to let the troops pass by without molesting them and “Don’t fire unless you are fired on, but if they want a war, it may as well begin here.”

When the troops appeared behind the Meeting House, they halted and then formed lines for engagement. Major John Pitcairn shouted for the militia to “Lay down your arms, you damned rebels, and disperse!” I heard one gun fire, which has later been called the “shot heard ‘round the world”. Then a British officer shouted, “Fire, by God! Fire!” Almost immediately, I turned my head and saw smoke in front of the troops as they opened fire. Several of the Minutemen had scattered and some were taking positions behind a stone wall. The troops ran a few steps and then a large group fired again. Then there was irregular firing and then more as I supposed it was the platoons. By this time I was not able to see the militia as a house was between them and me.

I later found out that of approximately 7-800 British troops which had left Boston, the battle at Lexington was between the Minutemen and around 200 of the troops which were leading the way towards Concord. These troops were under the leadership of Major Pitcairn, who may have fired the first shot with his pistol. During this battle, which only lasted a few minutes, there was one wounded and there were no deaths of British but eight of the Minutemen were killed and ten were wounded, some by gunshot and some by bayonet. Among the dead was Captain John Parker, who was cut down while reloading. By the time the battle was over, the rest of the troops had reached Lexington and all of the British troops marched on to Concord, where they had their second battle of the day.

Samuel Adams and John Hancock were protected from arrest and were safely away from battle on that day. This success, along with the British failure to destroy most of the powder and supplies in Concord, was due to the work of several of us, not just my ride on that night. As the King’s troops made their way back to Boston, they proceeded to burn homes, destroy property, abuse residents and even kill some. The Minutemen continued to attack the troops throughout much of their march. The troops were reinforced near Lexington by about 1,000 additional soldiers. By the end of the day the British losses were 73 killed, 174 wounded, and 26 missing for a total of 273 casualties. The Americans lost 49 killed, 41 wounded and five missing for a total of 95 casualties.

Even though it was not safe for me to return to Boston, the next day Mr. Warren, the president of the Committee of Safety, hired me to be in charge of the outdoor business of that committee. I returned to Charlestown and sent message to Rachel for her to gather the important belongings and the children and join me in Charlestown. We resided there during the siege of Boston.

On June 17, 1775, the battle of Bunker Hill took place. In this battle, two of the notable men in the above story were killed. Dr. Joseph Warren, age 34, a Bostonian was shot through the face and his body mutilated by British bayonets. On the British side, Major John Pitcairn was killed.

The British evacuated Boston in March of 1776, after General Washington ordered an attack on the British ships in Boston Harbor. During these months I was employed to design and print money for the government. Soon afterwards, when we had moved back into our home in Boston, I was given a commission with the assignment of helping to protect Boston from enemy attack.


(By: Mike Foil, based on various sources and stories from books and found on the Internet)