[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Historical
See other Historical Articles

Title: 25 Years Ago, the Federal Govt Changed its Rules to Launch a Sniper Attack on Off-Grid Family
Source: Free Thought Project
URL Source: http://thefreethoughtproject.com/25-years-ruby-ridge/
Published: Aug 21, 2017
Author: Claire Bernish
Post Date: 2017-08-22 09:40:21 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 9543
Comments: 44

Randall and Vicki Weaver and their children wanted nothing more than to be left to live an isolated life in peace in their cabin enclave on a northern Idaho mountaintop called Ruby Ridge. Untrusting of the federal government and of the belief society had taken an insurmountable turn for the worse, the Weavers — as many residents in the remote and breathtaking area — taught their children to be self-sufficient and defend themselves with firearms from unwanted intrusions onto the family’s property.

But the Weaver’s seemingly idyllic life came to an appallingly violent end over several hours from August 21 to 22, 1992, in a horrendously botched federal raid that would also profoundly alter perceptions about the U.S. government in the minds of even ordinary Americans.

Often afterward reported to be white supremacists, the Weavers considered themselves race “separatists” only — and intended no harm against others beyond that belief — though their stance often included the company of people with a more vehement ideology.

Regardless of the Weavers’ beliefs, the account of what federal agents perpetrated against the family under the premise of affecting law enforcement action implores Americans of every race to consider the telling outcome of untrammeled government power run amok.

In 1989, Randall “Randy” Weaver came under the scrutiny of federal agents intent on infiltrating sometimes-violent white supremacist organizations like the Aryan Nations — and eventually wound up charged for selling two illegal sawed-off shotguns to an undercover agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms [now, also, explosives] (ATF).

Weaver, notably, claimed he had been set up — thus flatly refusing the government’s offer to drop the charges if he would turn informant, feeding the feds information about various Aryan Nations members — and was indicted in December the following year.

Though Weaver’s insistence about the set-up leaves his failure to show up for a scheduled court date in February 1991 an altogether open question, a clerical error marking that court date for March didn’t prevent authorities from issuing a warrant for his arrest.

Knowing the Weavers possessed a relative arsenal — which Randall, Vicki, and their children were well-trained how to use — agents weren’t entirely sure how to carry out the warrant and so began intense surveillance of the family’s mountain home while carefully formulating a plan of action.

During this period, Vicki reportedly penned several darkly but vaguely threatening letters to federal agents, containing phrases such as “the tyrant’s blood will flow.”

Considering the family originally relocated to their outpost over mistrust of the government coupled with Randall’s claims concerning the charges which ultimately generated the warrant, Vicki’s language is understandable.

Remember, whatever narrative about dangerous white separatists federal officials proffered about the Weaver family, Randall had only sold — under questionable circumstances — two sawed-off shotguns to a federal agent, and his failure to appear in court, for all intents and purposes, was the fault of the court clerk’s ultimately egregious error.

All in all, an isolationist family on a remote mountain hardly posed an imminent threat to anyone.

Nonetheless, federal marshals set in motion a plan in August 1992 that would send shockwaves across the country and around the world for its deadly ineptitude and wholly disproportionate use of force.

On August 21, marshals surprised Randall, his 14-year-old son Sammy, friend of the family Kevin Harrison, and the Weaver’s family dog, Striker, on a road near the family’s property. Though some of what happened next remains a matter of conjecture, the events mark a disturbing turn in the use of force for the purposes of an otherwise relatively innocuous warrant.

A fully camouflage-clad marshal shot and killed Striker — prompting Sammy to return fire at the group of marshals. Shots then rang out from both sides — in the end, both Sammy and U.S. Marshal Michael Degan lay dead. After the brief gun battle, Weaver and Harrison retreated to Ruby Ridge and marshals regrouped, bringing in FBI agents and setting up a sniper to watch movements on the property.

One of the most contentious aspects of following events concerned an abhorrently arbitrary relaxing of the FBI’s rules of engagement to handle the case.

Larry Potts headed the FBI’s criminal division and oversaw the deployment of the agency’s Hostage Rescue Team to break the standoff at Ruby Ridge — but in doing so, loosely nullified longstanding rules of engagement preventing agents from firing in anything other than self-defense. In doing so, Potts created a monstrously rogue agency capable of firing at will — and the results were expectedly disastrous.

Agents were ordered to shoot any armed man on sight — on the Weaver’s private property — and when Randall appeared with a weapon alongside his 16-year-ol daughter Sara and Harris, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi opened fire, hitting Weaver in the arm.

Weaver, Harris, and Sara sprinted back to the safety of the cabin, but another shot from Horiuchi hit Vicki in the head, killing her as she clutched the couple’s 10-month-old daughter in her arms — but the bullet passed through her and also wounded Harris.

An incredibly tense 11-day standoff ensued, as the terrified survivors holed up in the Ruby Ridge home, but ended when mediators convinced Randall to turn himself in.

Horiuchi later claimed he had not been aware Vicki stood in the doorway when he fired the fatal shot. Though he was charged in 1997 with involuntary manslaughter for the killing of Vicki Weaver, a federal judge dismissed the charges the following year under the controversial alleged immunity of federal officers from state prosecution.

In 2001, a federal appeals court overruled that claim to immunity, stating federal officials who violate the U.S. Constitution can, indeed, be held accountable at the state level — but the Idaho prosecutor never pursued the manslaughter charge.

Randall and Harris both faced murder charges for the death of the federal marshall — but in a surprising move by an Idaho jury, all charges against them were dropped, save the original failure to appear charge against Weaver that generated the fateful warrant.

Surviving members of the Weaver family filed a wrongful death lawsuit, and in 1995, the patriarch received $100,000 and three of his daughters, $1 million each.

To this day, the grievous abuse of power fuels doubt in segments of the public about federal agencies’ ability to restrain itself in the use of unnecessary force disproportionate to putative threats.

Though the enormity of consequences of Ruby Ridge certainly echoed far into the future, the events have unfortunately sometimes been clouded by the Weaver family’s controversial ideologies. But those beliefs — as the families of countless other victims of a growing epidemic of state violence can attest — are of little consequence when the government acts with reckless impunity against a wide range of people from grossly different backgrounds.

Agents participating in and overseeing the siege of Ruby Ridge forced a sweeping internal investigation and concurrent reevaluation of policy — particularly due to the removal of imperative rules of engagement meant to protect civilians from the exact massacre that took place there.

And as is widely known, when the government receives the green light to abandon strictures protecting the public one time, it’s virtually guaranteed to happen again. As testament to this, the deadly and terroristic siege in Waco, Texas, by federal agents occurred shortly after the incident at Ruby Ridge.

On the 20th anniversary of her mother’s and brother’s murder by agents of the government, Sara Weaver poignantly recalled the harrowing details of her experience in an interview with the Associated Press — though she noted her father refuses to do the same. Losing her mother, who was indeed unarmed when she was killed, has been the most difficult aspect for Sara to come to terms with.

“We miss her terribly,” Sara lamented. “It never goes away.”

Despite the unprecedented mishandling, the payout to the surviving Weaver family, and the sh*tstorm of debate and controversy ensuing from the incident at Ruby Ridge, the government has never fully admitted any wrongdoing in the case.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 22.

#2. To: Deckard (#0) (Edited)

There is a lesson here and it is brutal: you are not an army. You are not equal to the government when it comes to using armed force. You do not have the right to ultimately get your way, because you do not have the POWER to enforce your will. You can bitch and moan about it all day until your face turns purple, but nobody cares, and nobody will care.

If you arm yourself to the teeth and try to separate from society, you're going into a weird and dangerous orbit. When you take your wife and kids out there with you, what you are doing is exposing them to death and destruction because of your pathological weirdness.

What happened here, really? A government agent shot a dog - that's bad. But a guy's poorly educated teenage son replied by shooting at the federal agent. THAT is where everything comes off the rails. THAT is the problem with being a secessionist, going and living in a shack in the hills, and believing that they're your hills, that you have the right to shoot people in them if they violate your standards. Sorry, but those hills are part of the United States, and there is NO PLACE in the United States where YOUR law supersedes the national law.

You are always and forever subordinated to the law of the land in this land. If you cannot handle that, leave. Going and living in a shack in this land is not leaving. You're still here, and you will still obey the laws.

The whole South doesn't get to decide to leave, and you don't get to take your family and secede in the American hills. Nor do you get to stop paying taxes. If having to obey the laws everywhere and pay your taxes is too damned much of an imposition, emigrate. In THIS land you SHALL obey the law and you SHALL pay the taxes, or you will die. Period.

Right? Wrong? Not relevant: REALITY. Might makes right, and you are not, and never will be, powerful enough to take on the government in armed combat. If you're too stubborn, too stupid and too pathological to understand those realities, you're going to end up dead at the hands of the government sooner or later. Worse, you're going to get your wife and kids killed to.

A pair of separatist parents armed themselves to the teeth and filled a 14 year old boy's head with crazy ideas. His dog got shot so he took on the government itself. So he got shot and died. And it all spun out of control after that.

Randy Weaver and his wife brought death upon themselves and their family by being crackpots who decided that guns would let them secede. Nobody gets to secede. You will bend the knee to the law of the land, or you will die.

Fascism! Communism! Naziism! Whatever. REALITY. The South learned that reality. The Weavers learned that reality. Everybody who decides to take on the authorities gun in hand will learn that reality. Shot down like dogs: that's the way it was. That's the way it is. That's the way it will be.

If you want to die on that hill, then fine, go die on that hill. Because you WILL DIE on that hill, and if you go there with your family, you'll probably end up killing them too.

Mourn the Weavers all you like. Ultimately they brought it on themselves.

No, you really don't have the right to go and be a racist separatist living in the American hills with a big pile of guns. You can try, but when the government agents come by, you will remember that you are still on American soil, you are still subject in every respect to the law of the land, and that your shack and your arsenal do not make you an independent nation in any sense. You are as fully answerable to the law and the taxman as anybody living in an apartment in New York City. You may not LIKE it, but if you want to live, you'll remember that.

If you forget it and present force to the government in opposition, then you shall die, probably with your loved ones also.

Ruby Ridge, Waco, all over the land.

Is it good? Doesn't matter if it's good or not. It is what it is. And if you want to live you will bend the knee to that reality.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-08-22   10:12:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: Vicomte13 (#2)

Randy Weaver and his wife brought death upon themselves and their family by being crackpots who decided that guns would let them secede. Nobody gets to secede. You will bend the knee to the law of the land, or you will die.

I hope you think that applies to traitors who put their first loyalty to a foreign power called The Catholic Church.

Not surprised to see you take the government's side in this. After all,you are nothing more than a statist yourself who loves the idea of being a member of the Borg because you don't have the balls to face life on your own.

sneakypete  posted on  2017-08-22   12:35:33 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#9. To: sneakypete (#5)

I hope you think that applies to traitors who put their first loyalty to a foreign power called The Catholic Church.

Not surprised to see you take the government's side in this. After all,you are nothing more than a statist yourself who loves the idea of being a member of the Borg because you don't have the balls to face life on your own.

My first loyalty is to God. My second loyalty is to my family.

The country is below those two, yes. Always will be. Always should be. Think about all of those Confederates whose monuments are being pulled down. They died for their stupid cause. The names of all but a handful are forgotten, and everything they stood and died for is gone with the wind. The only thing anybody remembers, when they see a monument, is that they went out there and died - and because the living write the history, they are remembered for having gone out and thrown their lives away and bereaved their families all for an evil cause and a country that lasted five years. Heroes? Idiots who traded their lives for a stupid idol.

The same can be said of the Japanese who charged the guns. The Germans who charged across Europe. The crusaders who rode by the Cross to die. Lost causes that mean nothing now. They died. The living inherited the world.

To go and die in somebody else's cause is not glorious. It's stupid.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-08-22   14:23:54 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#11. To: Vicomte13 (#9)

To go and die in somebody else's cause is not glorious. It's stupid.

Would you include those who died in the Revolutionary War in this characterization?

Many revolts have failed. Many have succeeded. (The difference between a revolt and a revolutions is that a revolution succeeds). It's easy to sit back 150 years after the fact and quarterback the civil war in hindsight, but not so easy to divine the outcome in advance. Though the odds were stacked against them, the south could have won the war. They didn't really even want war. They just wanted independence. It was the North that wanted war to prevent them from doing what he colonies did some 80 years prior, which is universally considered a justified act. So if they declare independence and the North attacks, is it really any more stupid for the south to take up arms in defense than it was for the colonies to take up arms after King George attacked?

Pinguinite  posted on  2017-08-22   16:05:06 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: Pinguinite (#11)

Would you include those who died in the Revolutionary War in this characterization?

The Revolutionary War was unjustified.

So yes.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-08-22   16:25:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#17. To: Vicomte13 (#13)

The Revolutionary War was unjustified.

I suppose you never read the Declaration of Independence. I am fairly sure you can find a copy somewhere on the Internet to read and understand a number of justifiable reasons.

buckeroo  posted on  2017-08-23   10:55:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#20. To: buckeroo (#17)

I am fairly sure you can find a copy somewhere on the Internet to read and understand a number of justifiable reasons.

I've read it, and I see a self-serving political document full of exaggerated and hypocritical claims. I am unpersuaded by its arguments that the American colonists were justified in murdering the authorities.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-08-23   12:42:17 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#21. To: Vicomte13 (#20)

The "authorities" as you put it, were murderous English bastards controlled by England. There was no representation for and about the colonists, at all in any legal matter.

And you remain "unpersuaded" ... why is that?

buckeroo  posted on  2017-08-23   13:08:10 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#22. To: buckeroo (#21)

The "authorities" as you put it, were murderous English bastards controlled by England. There was no representation for and about the colonists, at all in any legal matter.

And you remain "unpersuaded" ... why is that?

"Controlled by England". So what?

The American colonies were settled by England. The French-armed Indian enemy on land frontiers had been fought off, sometimes barely, on every landward frontier by the English Army, at great cost in blood and treasure, and the French Navy had been prevented from sweeping up the coast and blasting every colonial city into a pile of driftwood time and again for a hundred and sixty years. America WAS England. It was filled with English people, and Scotch- Irish.

In the late war that ended in 1763, the French had finally been driven off the frontier and the Indian threat quelled - by English arms and English blood, and English navies.

The colonies were not divided in two by a Dutch realm running from Greenwich to Cape May because the English had sailed in and taken New York and environs from the Dutch. The American colonists didn't do it.

America was preserved from French conquest, and made a continuous set of English-speaking colonies, by the British Crown and the English army. It was English blood and English treasure that won the American continent for the Americans. The colonists didn't defeat the French or the Indians or the Dutch. They were not capable of it. It was England - jolly old England - that bore the brunt of battle, and the expense.

The English crown went deeply into debt winning America for the Americans, and the French were not gone. They still had a magnificent navy and the world's finest army. The people living in Canada and the Great Lakes were French, not English. They had settled those lands at the same time the English settled the Eastern Seaboard. Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan was settled by the French in 1660, before Connecticut, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, South Carolina or Georgia existed, and while New York, New Jersey and Delaware were still Dutch colonies.

French America was as old as English America, and its people were more deeply intermarried with, and shared a religion with, the Indians than the English ever did. The French could always come back, and if they did, the American colonists alone would never be able to face them. It would take England to fend them off, if England could.

As it happened, actually, the French DID come back, in 1778, on the side of the Americans against the English. And this time, the English could not fend them off. The English Navy was defeated by the French Navy and driven off, and the English Army was captured by a combined French-American Army.

America NEEDED England during all of those long decades and decades. And England bled for America. The Americans owed a debt of allegiance to their Mother Country and to their King. They also owed their fair share of taxes to pay for the great expense of the war that drove the French off.

But once the American rebels felt the French threat recede, they did not feel a debt of gratitude. Rather, they saw an opportunity. The taxes imposed on America were small compared to the taxes paid by the English and Scots and Irish in the British Isles.

The American colonists did not want to pay ANYTHING AT ALL. What's more, the American colonists did not want to respect British trade restrictions, which were designed to disfavor the adversaries of the British. It was profitable for Americans to trade with the French and Spanish enemies, so they did, and to hell with the law.

Americans who import illegals and contraband from Mexico today have the same attitude. Do they have a legitimate grievance against the federal government for making that difficult? No. Neither did the American colonists who made large profits trading with the enemy, and who resented the government's efforts to curtail that in the overall national interest.

The Americans had self-government. They had always had it, all the way back to the settlement of Virginia. The law in the Colonies was colonial law, the general assemblies in the colonies were elected by the locals, always had been, and they ruled for the locals. The judges and courts were local. Only the Royal Governors were sent from England (as American territories, to this day, had governors sent from the capital), but the governors' salaries were paid by the local assemblies, who could - and did - cut governors' salaries at various times over the years, in the event of disagreements.

Once the Americans engaged in wholesale smuggling and would not obey the law or convict the smugglers, the government resorted to offshore admiralty courts to try to bring this behavior under control. That is complained about in the Declaration of Independence. Essentially, the colonists claimed the right to trade with the enemy as they pleased, and considered it an affront to their "rights" that the government took steps to stop that or punish it.

In a similar vein, once the English army had captured Quebec City, the whole of French Canada, a region vaster than the American colonies, and settled for just as long by the French (and forever by the Indians), fell into their hands. What was to be done with these vast territories of new subjects? The French- Canadians, for their part, were willing to live under the rule of the English King as opposed to their own King as long as the basics were respected: they were allowed to govern themselves locally as they always had (same as the American colonies), and they were allowed to practice their native religion, as they always had (same as the American colonies).

But the French and Indians were, of course, Catholic. Catholic France had settled and converted Catholic French Canada and the Great Lakes since 1608, same as the English had settled the Eastern Seaboard since 1607.

The English Crown, wishing to have peace in these new vast Canadian lands, chose very wisely and very reasonably to leave the French Canadians to their local customs and not molest them in their practice of their religion - same deal they gave to the American colonies. Pennsylvania was not Church of England. Neither was New England. The Crown understood that people in the Americas had their own customs and religions, and as long as they kept the peace and paid their taxes they were content to let them be.

It was the American colonies, full of Protestant bigots, who could not tolerate the mere THOUGHT that the English Crown did not oppress the French in their Catholicism, that the English crown tolerated Catholicism among the French and Indians of Canada just the same as the King tolerated Congregationalism among the New Englanders, and Quakerism and Presbyterianism among the Pennsylvanians. Read that Declaration of Independence and its fulminations against that complaint: " For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies".

What an utter load of steaming bullshit! Quebec had been French and Catholic for as long as Virginia had existed, and was there a decade and a half before the first Pilgrim set foot on Plymouth Rock. The "System of English Laws" had NEVER at any SECOND in all of history EVER governed Quebec, Canada, New France, or any arpent of it. Not ever. The Colonists, who did not capture Quebec, did not defeat the French and Indians, did not lose so many ships and thousands of men in a world war against France, are whingeing here that the French Canadian Catholics are being allowed to live unmolested under their own religion and local laws JUST EXACTLY AS THE AMERICAN COLONISTS claim the right to do.

A more preposterous and hypocritical position is not possible. As it happens, the French Canadians themselves had no love at all for the English and their King, but they understood that the American colonists hated them and wanted to oppress them and destroy their villages and crush out their religion just as the English had tried to do in little Ireland. THAT is why the French- Canadians had no interest at all in helping the Americans. There was a sliver of a chance in 1775, that they might have been willing to throw off English rule in favor of home rule under the wider American model - IF (and ONLY if) the new American republic was willing to acknowledge the French right to govern themselves under their own laws and be as Catholic as New England was Puritan.

What realistic chance of that was there, given that the year AFTER the Americans were bitching - sotto voce - about French Canadian Catholicism in the very Declaration of Independence?

In any event, the first Americans up into French Canada in 1775 were Ethan Allen and his Green Mountain boys, and they were quite hostile to the French Canadians they were supposedly there to liberate, resulting in a gunfight with some French militia and the closing of the fort walls to the Americans up and down the St. Lawrence. And that, as they say, was that: Quebec and French Canada would remain, reluctantly, under British rule. That it turned out that was is directly on account of the attitude and the behavior of the Americans. The French were as eager to preserve THEIR ancestral rights and faith as the American colonists were, and the English Crown was protecting them, while the American colonists made clear their hostility from the moment they set foot in the territory.

The Americans are sometimes said to have said that taxation without representation was wrong, but in the Petition of Right sent to the King in 1774, the American colonists complained not simply that they were not represented in Parliament, but that they were much too far away to BE represented in Parliament, and that therefore their OWN legislatures must be the final deciders of laws. Well, the colonial legislatures could have ALWAYS taken up the cause of reasonable taxation and voted locally to provide some sort of reasonable tax payments to the Crown to defray the costs the English had borne securing American territory from the French. It was perfectly obvious all along that the Americans never intended to pay ANY TAXES WHATEVER, that the Americans intended to be free riders, obtaining the benefits of English power without, however, bearing any of the financial burdens of it.

They complained about the English Parliament taxing them, and they complained about English rules against trading with the enemy, but in their OWN legislatures they never took up the cause of voluntarily paying as much as a FARTHING to England for military preparation, and they never intended to do anything BUT trade with the enemy on whatever terms the Yankee merchants thought were profitable to THEM - and to hell with the best interests of the whole English Commonwealth.

Properly understood, the Declaration of Independence lists a bunch of "grievances" that amount to these five things:

(1) We do not intend to pay any taxes to England. (2) We intend to trade with the enemy as we please. (3) The French Canadians have no right to maintain their legal customs or religion, and (4) England has no right to enforce any laws, or punish anybody for breaking them. And (5) And we have the right to kill English soldiers at will in order to do it our way.

It is completely self-serving and unpersuasive.

Now, of course, the Americans had help. There were plenty of rivals eager to see England brought down. The War of the American Revolution saw the Dutch, the Spanish and the French all go to war, openly or clandestinely, against the British all over the world, and British power was broken. The French Navy emerged dominant in the Americas, and the French Navy stripped the then-British empire in India from the British (Pondicherry), which the British never recovered.

The impressive gains of the Seven Years War were largely reversed, and the British lost their Empire. The Americans got their independence, and the French-Canadians kept their own culture and religion intact despite the American efforts to the contrary.

The American front of operations was a magnificent quagmire into which British arms and British treasure was poured, allowing the French to crush a divided England in America AND in India and establish French naval parity (and local superiority) that would last until the French had their own revolution, which took the expressed (but never really implemented) ideals of the American Revolution and made them the banner on which the French Revolution began (it devolved into something altogether different).

So, the American Revolution certainly had its reverberations, and ended up, on balance, being a beneficial thing for the Americans and the French.

However, none of that was foreseeable in 1776, and what the Americans did - claim the right to murder the police because they didn't want to pay taxes or tolerate their neighbor's religion, but wanted to trade with the enemy - was not justification for killing people any more than the South's desire to preserve slavery justified secession and mass death in the American Civil War.

I am unpersuaded by the American arguments in the Declaration of Independence because they are patently self-serving exaggerations and half-truths, and because the only one that justifies actually shooting at the police was the unleashing of Indians on the frontier, which did not happen until the Americans had started shooting.

Vicomte13  posted on  2017-08-23   17:54:15 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 22.

        There are no replies to Comment # 22.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 22.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com