Are We Ready for Independence Day?
Sam Aurelius Milam III
For
the next month or so, we'll be inundated by propaganda celebrating the
"Birth of Our Nation." We'll see little acknowledgment of the fact
that the Fourth of July has nothing whatsoever to do with the "Birth of
Our Nation."
There's
even some confusion about which nation is designated in the celebration.
Prior to the existence of the present United States of America, there was
another union of the American states that was also called the United States
of America. It had a different constitution, called the Articles
of Confederation. Its form of government was very different from
that of the present United States of America. For example, it did
not have an executive branch. The point, however, is that the common
name doesn't mean much. They were entirely different unions.
The
present United States of America began on March 4, 1789, when the Congress
met for the first time under the authority of the new constitution.
The previous United States of America began on March 1, 1781, when the
Articles of Confederation were adopted and went into force. Neither
of these dates is July 4, 1776. Therefore, the Fourth of July cannot
possibly commemorate the beginning of the United States of America — either
of them. What, then, does the Fourth of July commemorate?
Prior
to July, 1776, each of the English colonies terminated its political ties
with England and several of them adopted constitutions. This independence
of the colonies was proclaimed by the Declaration of Independence.
The writers of the Declaration called themselves representatives of the
United States of America, yet another use of the name, even prior to the
Articles of Confederation. However, the writers consistently referred
to the colonies in the plural. The name given to the union was the
United States of America (plural), not the United State of America (singular).
The writers concluded by asserting the independence of each separate colony,
and not that of the union. The effect was to make each colony a separate
and independent nation.
| "We, therefore, the representatives of the United
States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name,
and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly
publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right
ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved
from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection
between them and the
state of Great Britain, is and ought to be
totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states,
they have full power ... to do all other acts and things which independent
states
may of right do ...."
— from the Declaration of Independence
<emphasis added> |
At
that time, state meant what nation means today. Note
the reference to the singular "state" of Great Britain. The Declaration
did not create a single nation called the United States of America.
That happened later, with the enactment of the Articles of Confederation
and the U.S. Constitution. It created a union of independent nations
which shared a common purpose. It was more nearly a treaty than a
constitution. The answer to the question, then, is that the Fourth
of July commemorates the day when the English colonies became politically
independent nations.
It's
ironic that the repressive and imperialistic political powers of the USA
today promote a celebration so supportive of the end of the union and the
return of the American states to the status of politically independent
nations. When we celebrate the Fourth of July, that's what we celebrate
— not union, but independence.
Teach The Children Well
Sam Aurelius Milam III
So
far this year, a few students have been killed in schools by their fellow
students. Though tragic, the number killed is fewer than were killed
in a single raid by the FBI in Waco, and far fewer than are killed by other
methods that are not so useful as propaganda.
I
believe that these killings are being used as a propaganda bonanza by the
"news" industry and the police state advocates. Each group ruthless
exploits the killings to promote its own self-interest. However,
we won't solve the problem by allowing ourselves to be stampeded into training
children to live in a police state. The pictures of students being
herded through metal detectors, and of cops patrolling the hallways of
schools, are more disgusting than I can describe.
I
don't believe that such extreme and repressive measures are useful.
However, if people insist upon extreme measures, then let's try something
that doesn't promote mindless submission to authority. Maybe we could
arm the teachers. Maybe we could even arm the students. I don't
like the idea much, but anything is better than training them to meekly
submit to a police state.
If
that's too extreme, then we should at least end the monstrous nonsense
of mandatory school attendance. It was never a good idea. In
the present situation, it's absolutely intolerable. Again, the government
has created a situation in which nobody has any choice and then used the
resulting problems to impose additional repression. The only beneficiaries
are the "news" industry and the government. The children would be
far better off without such a free public "education".
| Frontiersman@ida.net | Frontiersman,
479 E. 700 N., Firth, Idaho 83236
Also see The Pharos Connection at http://www.ida.net/users/pharos/ |
June 1998
Page 1
|
