Sunday, August 30, 2009

The Present and Future Peace of Europe - William Penn, 1693

An Essay towards the Present and Future Peace of Europe
by the establishment of an European Dyet, Parliament, or Estates.
by William Penn – 1693

“Beati Pacifica ---Cedant arma togae”

To the Reader:

I have undertaken a Subject that I am sensible requires one of more sufficiency than I am Master of to treat it, as in Truth it deserves, and the groaning State of Europe calls for; but since Bunglers may stumble upon the Game as well as Masters, though it belongs to the Skillful to hunt and catch it, I hope this ESSAY will not be charged upon me for a Fault, if it appear to be neither Chimerical nor Injurious, and may provoke abler Pens to improve and perform the Design with better Judgment & Success.

I will say no more in excuse of myself for this Undertaking, but that it is the Fruit of my Solicitous Thought for the PEACE of Europe, and they must want Charity as much as the World needs Quiet to be offended with me for so PACIDICK a Proposal.

He must not be a man but a Statue of Brass or Stone whose bowls do not melt when he beholds the bloody Tragedies of this War…So that in the Contraries of Peace we see the Beauties & Benefits of it; …What can we desire better than Peace, but Grace to use it? …

I shall proceed to the next point: What is the best Means of Peace? JUSTICE rather than War. As Justice is a Preserver, so it is a better Procurer of Peace than War. Tho’ “PAX QUAERITUR BELLO” be an usual saying ---Peace is the end of War --- yet the use generally made of that expression shows us that properly and truly speaking Men seek their Wills by War rather than Peace… If we look over all the Stories of all Times we shall find the Aggressors generally moved by Ambition, the Pride of Conquest and Greatness of Dominion more than Right.

Government is an expedient against Confusion; a Restraint upon all disorder; just Weights and even Balances; that one may not injure another nor himself by Intemperance…No man is Judge in his own Cause, which ends the Confusion and Blood of so many Judges and Executioners. For out of Society every man is his own King, does what he lists at his own Peril. But when he comes to incorporate himself, he submits that Royalty to conveniencing of the Whole, from whom he receives the returns of Protection. So that he is not now his own Judge nor Avenger, neither is his Antagonist, but the Law, in indifferent hands between both. And if he is servant to others that before was free, he is also served of others that formerly owned him no Obligation. Thus while we are not our own Everybody is ours, and we get more than we lose, the Safety of the Society being the Safety of the Particulars that constitute it. So that while we seem to submit to, and hold all we have from Society, it is by society that we keep what we have.

GOVERNMENT is then the Prevention and Cure of Disorder, and the Means of JUSTICE, as that is of PEACE.

I HAVE thus briefly treated of Peace, Justice, and Government, as a necessary Introduction, because the Ways and Methods by which Peace is preserved in particular Governments will help those Readers most concerned in my Proposal to conceive with what Ease the Peace of Europe might be procured and kept; which is the end designed by me, with all Submission to those interested in this little Treatise.

Now if the SOVERIGN PRINCES of EUROPE, who represent that Society or Independent State of Men that was previous to the Obligations of Society, would – for the same Reason that engaged Men first into society, viz: Love of Peace and Order, agree to meet by their stated Deputies in a General DYET, ESTATES, or PARLIAMENT, and there establish RULES of JUSTICE for Sovereign Princes to observe one to another; and this to meet yearly, or once in two or three years at farthest, or as they Cause, and to be styled the SOVERIGN or IMPERIAL DYET, PARLIAMENT, or STATE of EUROPE; before which Sovereign Assembly should be brought all Differences depending between one Sovereign and another, that cannot be made up by private Embassies before the Sessions begin, …Europe would quietly obtain the so much desired and needed PEACE to her harassed Inhabitants; no Sovereignty in Europe having the Power and therefore cannot show the Will to dispute the Conclusion…

There appears to me but three Things upon which Peace is broken, viz: To Keep, To Recover, or To Add.


To keep what is Ones Right, from the Invasion of an Enemy; in which I am purely defensive.


To Recover, when I think myself strong enough, that which Violence I, or my Ancestors, have lost by Arms of a Stronger Power; in which I am offensive.

Or Lastly,

To Increase my Dominion by the Acquisition of my Neighbor’s Countries, as I find them weak and myself Strong.

This Last will find no room in the Imperial States. They are an impassable Limit to that Ambition. But the other Two may come as soon as they please, and find the Justice of the Sovereign Court.

THE Fuller the Assembly of States is, the more Solemn, Effectual, and Free the Debates will be, and the Resolutions must need come with greater Authority. The Place of their First Session should be Central as much as possible. Afterwards --- as they agree.

TO avoid Quarrel for PRECEDENCY the ROOM may be ROUND (!!!) and have diverse Doors to come in and go out at, to prevent Exceptions. If the whole Number be cast in Tens, each chusing One, they may preside by turns, to whom all speeches should be addressed, and who should collect the Sense of the Debates, and state the Question for a Vote, which, in my opinion, should be by Ballot after the Precedent and Commendable Method of the Venetians…It seems to me that nothing in this Imperial Parliament should pass by Three Quarters of the Whole.

THE First then is this, that the STRONGEST and RIGHTEST SOVEREIGNTY will never agree to it, and if it should, there would be danger of Corruption more than by Force one time or another. I answer …He is not stronger than all the rest, and for that Reason you should promote this, and compel him into it…

The Second is, That it will endanger Effeminacy by such a disuse of the Trade of Soldiery. …There can be no danger of Effeminacy because each Sovereign may introduce as Temperate or Severe a Discipline in the Education of Youth as he please…This would make them Men; neither Women nor Lyons; for Soldiers are t’other Extreme to Effeminacy. But the Knowledge of Nature, and the useful as well as agreeable Operations of Art give Men an Understanding of Themselves, of the World they are born into, …how to save and help, not injure and destroy. The Knowledge of Government in General, the particular Constitutions of Europe, and above all of his own Country are very recommending Accomplishments. This fits him for the Parliament and Councils at Home, and the Courts of Princes and Services in the Imperial States abroad. At lease he is a good Common-Wealth’s man.

I AM now come to the Last Objection, that SOVEREIGN PRINCES and STATES will hereby become not Sovereign, a thing they will never endure. But this, also, under Correction is a Mistake, for they remain as Sovereign at Home as ever they were. Neither their Power over their People, nor the usual Revenue they pay them is diminished. It may be the War Establishment may be reduced, which will indeed follow, or be better employed to the Advantage of the Publick.

SO that the SOVEREIGNTIES are as they were, for none of them has now any Sovereignty over one another, and if this be called a lessening of their Power it must be only because the Great Fish can no longer eat up the Little Ones. And that each sovereign is equally defended from Injuries, and disabled from committing them. CEDANT ARMA TOGAE is a Glorious Sentence: The Voice of The DOVE: The Olive Branch of PEACE!


Let it not, I pray, be the least that it prevents the spilling of so much human and Christian Blood…

There is another manifest Benefit. …The Reputation of Christianity will in some degree be recovered in the sight of Infidels. …THEIR SAVIOUR has told them that He came to save and not to destroy the Lives of Men. …To give and to plant PEACE among Men, Of all His Titles this seems the most glorious as well as comfortable for us that He is The PRINCE OF PEACE. It is His Nature, His Office, His Work, and the End and excellent Blessings of His Coming, Who is both the MAKER AND PRESERVER of OUR


Saturday, August 29, 2009

"Pennsylvania" the official song of the commonwealth

The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania adopted the song "Pennsylvania" as the official state song of the commonwealth. It was signed into law by Governor Robert P. Casey on November 29,1990. "Pennsylvania" is the official state song for all public purposes. It was written and composed by Eddie Khoury and Ronnie Bonner.


Verse 1

Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania,
Mighty is your name,
Steeped in glory and tradition,
Object of acclaim.
Where brave men fought the foe of freedom,
Tyranny decried,
'Til the bell of independence
filled the countryside.


Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania,
May your future be,
filled with honor everlasting
as your history.

Verse 2

Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania,
Blessed by God's own hand,
Birthplace of a mighty nation,
Keystone of the land.
Where first our country's flag unfolded,
Freedom to proclaim,
May the voices of tomorrow
glorify your name.


Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania,
May your future be,
filled with honor everlasting
as your history.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Acknowledgements of God - State legislation

Alabama-1901, 1963 supp., “We, the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice, …invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish…” Preamble to Constitution.

“…that they (all men) are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”…Art. I, sec. 1 (Declaration of Rights).

Alaska-1956, 1963 supp., “We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God…establish this Constitution…” Preamble to Constitution.

Arizona-1910, 1963 supp., “We, the people of the State of Arizona, grateful to Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.” Preamble to Constitution.

Arkansas-1874, 1963 supp., We, the people of the State of Arkansas, grateful to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form of government...(establish this Constitution)” …Preamble to Constitution.

“All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.”…Art. 2, sec. 24.

“No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any court.” Art. 19, sec. 1.

“Religion, morality and knowledge essential to good government, the General Assembly shall enact suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.” Art. 2, sec. 25.

California-1879, 1963 supp., We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…(establish this Constitution)…Preamble to Constitution.

Colorado-1876, 1961 supp., “We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of Universe (establish this Constitution)”….Preamble to Constitution.

Connecticut-1963 supp., The People of Connecticut, acknowledging with gratitude, the good Providence of God, in permitting them to enjoy a free government…(establish this Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution

“It being the duty of all men to worship, the Supreme Being, the Great Creator and Preserver of the Universe, and their right to render that worship, in the mode most consistent with the dictates of their consciences (certain rights will follow; for full text see below)”…Article Seventh, sec. I.

Delaware-1897, 1962 supp., “Through Divine Goodness all men have by nature the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to the dictates of their consciences.” …Preamble to Constitution

“Although it is the duty of all men frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are hereby promoted; yet no man shall or ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of any ministry, against his own free will and consent; and no power shall or ought to be vested in or assumed by any magistrate that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship, nor a preference given by law to any religious societies, denominations, or modes of worship.” Art. I, sec. I.

Florida-1885, 1963 supp., “We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty…(establish this Constitution.)” Preamble to Constitution

Georgia-1945, 1963 supp., “We, the people of Georgia, relying upon protection and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Preamble to Constitution

“All men have the natural and inalienable right to worship God, each according to the dictates of his own conscience.” Art. 1, sec. 2-112.

Hawaii-1961, “We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance .. (establish this Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution

Idaho 1890, 1961 supp., “We, the people of the State of Idaho, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings. ..(establish this Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution.

“It is ordained by the state of Idaho that perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of said state shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship.”…Art. 21, sec. 19.

Illinois-1870, 1962 supp., “We, the people of the State of Illinois, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors to secure and transmit the same unimpaired to succeeding generations…(establish this Constitution.” Preamble to Constitution.

Indiana-1851, 1963 supp., “We, the People of the State of Indiana, grateful to Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to choose our form of government, do ordain this Constitution.” Preamble to Constitution.

“We declare, That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights…” Art, 1, sec. 1.

“All men shall be secured in their natural right to worship Almighty God…” Art. 1, sec. 2.

Iowa-1857, 1963 supp., “We, the People of the State of Iowa, grateful to the Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling our dependence on Him for a continuation of these blessings…(establish this Constitution.)” Preamble to Constitution.

Kansas-1859, 1963 supp., “We, the people of Kansas, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious privileges…(establish this Constitution).”

“The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed.” …Bill of Rights, sec. 7.

Kentucky-1956, 1962 supp., “We, the people of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy…(establish this Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution

Louisiana-1921, 1963 supp., “We, the people of the State of Louisiana, grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberties we enjoy, and desiring to secure the continuance of these blessings, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Preamble to Constitution.

“Every person has the natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.” …Art. 1, sec.4.

Maine-1963 supp., “We the People of Maine… acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring His aid and direction…(establish this Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution.

“All men have a natural and unalienable right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.” …Art. I, sec. 3.

Maryland-1867, 1963 supp., “We, the people of the state of Maryland, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberty (declare specified rights)” …Preamble to Declaration of Rights.

“That as it is the duty of every man to worship God in such a manner as he thinks most acceptable to Him, all persons are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.” …Art. 36.

Massachusetts-1780, “We, therefore, the people of Massachusetts, acknowledging, with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great Legislator of the Universe, in affording us, in the course of His Providence, (an opportunity to form a compact);… and devoutly imploring His direction in so interesting a design, …(establish the Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution

“It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe.” Declaration of Rights, Art. II.

“As the public worship of God and instructions in piety, religion and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of republican government (certain rights accrue to religious societies).” Declaration of Rights, Art. III.

Michigan-1908, 1963 supp., “We, the people of the State of Michigan, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom…(establish this Constitution). Preamble to Constitution.

“Every person shall be at liberty to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.” …Art. II, sec. 3.

“Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Art. XI, sec. 1

Minnesota-1857, 1963 supp., “We, the people of the State of Minnesota, grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring to perpetuate its blessings…(establish the Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution.

“The right of every man to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed.” Bill of Rights, Art. I, sec. 16.

Mississippi-1890, 1962 supp., “We, the people of Mississippi in convention assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on our work, do ordain and establish this constitution.” Preamble to Constitution.

“No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state. Art. 14, sec. 265.

Missouri-1945, “We, the people of Missouri, with profound reverence for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for His goodness…(establish this Constitution.)” Preamble to Constitution.

“That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.”…Bill of Rights, Art. I, sec. 5.

Montana-1889, “We, the people of Montana, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty (establish this Constitution).” …Preamble to Constitution.

Nebraska-1876, 1963 supp., “We, the people, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…(establish this Constitution.)” Preamble to Constitution.

“All persons have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.” Bill of Rights, Art. I, sec. 4.

Nevada -1864, 1963 supp., “We the people of the State of Nevada, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…(establish this Constitution). Preamble to Constitution.

New Hampshire-1783, 1963 supp., “As morality and piety, rightly grounded on evangelical principles, will give the best and greatest security to government, and will lay, in the hearts of men, the strongest obligations to due subjection; and as the knowledge of these is most likely to be propagated through a society, by the institution of the public worship of the Diety, and of public instruction in morality and religion; there from, to promote these important purposes, the people of this state have a right to empower, the legislature, to authorize, from time to time, the several towns, parishes, bodies corporate, or religious societies, within this state, to make adequate provision, at their own expense, for support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion, and morality…”

“And every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves quietly, and as good subjects of the state, shall be equally under the protection of the law: And no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another, shall ever be established by law…” Pt. I, Art. 6th.

New Jersey-1947, 1963 supp., “We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors. …(establish this Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution.

“No persion shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshipping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience.” Art. I, sec. 3.

New Mexico-1911, 1959 supp., “We, the People of New Mexico, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of liberty…(Establish this Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution.

“Every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience.” Art. II, sec. 11.

New York-1938, 1963 supp., “We, the people of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its blessings, do establish this Constitution.” Preamble to Constitution.

North Carolina-1868, 1963 supp., “We, the people of the State of North Carolina, grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of nations, for the preservation of the American Union and the existence of our civil, political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our dependence upon Him for the continuance of those blessings to us….(establish this Constitution). Preamble to Constitution.

“All persons have a natural and inalienable right to worship almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.” Art. I, sec. 26.

“The following classes of persons shall be disqualified for office: First, all persons who deny the being of Almighty God...” Art. VI, sec. 8.

North Dakota-1889, 1960 supp., “We, the people of North Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do ordain and establish this constitution.”

Ohio-1851, 1963 supp., “We the people of the state of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…(establish this Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution.

“Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship and to encourage schools and the means of instruction.” Bill of Rights. Art. I sec. 7.

Oklahoma-1907, “Invoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty…(we establish this Constitution). …Preamble to Constitution.

“Perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and no inhabitant of the State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his mode of religious worship; and no religious test shall be required for the exercise of civil political rights.” Art. I, sec. 2.

Oregon-1859, 1961 supp., “All men shall be secure in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their consciences.” Bill of Rights, Art. I, sec. 2.

“No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religious opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.” Bill of Rights, Art. I, sec. 3.

Pennsylvania-1874, 1963 supp., “We, the people of Pennsylvania, grateful to Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, and humbly invoking His guidance, do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Preamble to Constitution.

“All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences.” …Art. I, sec.3.

“No person who acknowledges the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishment shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth.” Art. I, sec. 4.

Rhode Island-1963 supp., “We the People of the State of Rhode Island…, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and transmit the same…(establish this Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution.

“…Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; and all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend to begat habits of hypocrisy and meanness; and whereas a principal object of our venerable ancestors, in their migration to this country and their settlement of this state, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment, that a flourishing civil state may stand and be best maintained with full liberty in religious concernments; we, therefore, declare that no man shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of his own voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of his religious belief; and that every man shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, and to profess and buy argument to maintain his opinion in matters of religion’ and that the same shall in no wide diminish, enlarge, or affect his civil capacity. Art. I, sec. 3.

South Carolina-1895, 1963 supp., “We, the people of he State of South Carolina, …grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the preservation and perpetuation of the same.” Preamble to Constitution.

“No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.” Art. 17, sec. 4.

South Dakota-1961 supp., “We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties…(establish this Constitution). Preamble to Constitution.

“The right to worship God according to the dictates of conscience shall never be infringed.” Art. VI, sec. 3.

Tennessee 1870, “That all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their conscience.”… Art. I, sec. 3.

“No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.” Art. XI, sec. 2.

Texas-1876, 1963 supp., “Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God…(we establish this Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution.

“Nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” Art. I, sec. 4.

Utah-1961 supp., “Grateful to Almighty God for life and liberty, we…establish this Constitution.” Preamble to Constitution.

Vermont-1793, “That all men have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences…ever sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord’s day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem more agreeable to the revealed will of God.” Ch. I, art. 3rd.

Virginia-1902, 1962 supp., That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator…can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence…” Art. I, sec. 16.

Washington-1889, 1961 supp., “We the People of the State of Washington, grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties, do ordain this Constitution.” Preamble to Constitution.

West Virginia-1872, 1963, “No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship…whatsoever; nor shall any man be enforced, restrained, molested or burthened, in his body or goods, or otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess, and by argument , to maintain their opinions in matters of religion.” III, sec. 15.

Wisconsin-1848, “We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom…(establish this Constitution). Preamble to Constitution.

“The right of every man to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience shall never be infringed.” Art. I, sec. 18.

Wyoming-1890, “We, the people of the State of Wyoming, grateful to God for our civil, political, and religious liberties…(establish this Constitution).” Preamble to Constitution.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Death with Dignity? - Euthanasia

Just imagine that these events were to become known to the enemy! And were being exploited by them! In all probability, such propaganda would be ineffective simply because those hearing and reading it would not be prepared to believe it.

The Reichskommisar for the Ostland to the Reichminister for occupied Eastern territories – June 18, 1943

The term “euthanasia” has become a respectable concept in our contemporary vocabulary and consciousness subtly through the use of the phrase death with dignity. The term euthanasia was first used in a contemporary setting in Germany. In 1920, Alfred Hoche and Karl Binding published the book The Release of the Destruction of Life Devoid of Value. It is likely that their book was the beginning of the German rationale for what began as a program of euthanasia which brought to fruition the attempted genocide of specific classifications of people.

Consequently, the term euthanasia and the phrase death with dignity became the motto of the movement to legalize the destruction of human life. Their meaning was very clear: to legalize the murder of a person or persons whom they believed had “the right to the complete relief of an unbearable life.”

Who are the ones who declare that a person’s life unbearable? We must as the question, “Unbearable by whose definition?” When a newborn child with a congenital defect is left unattended to starve to death: physicians and professionals in the legal profession refer to the murderous act as passive euthanasia.

Is there justification for a physician to withhold extraordinary care in the management of his or her patient? In order to answer the question we must first define the term extraordinary when referring to the care of patients.

Procedures and technology which we call extraordinary today will not be so tomorrow. The administration of intravenous fluids and oxygen was once considered extraordinary. Respirators, heart-lung machines, and pacemakers were once considered extraordinary. Newborn children with congenital defects which are incompatible with life would ordinarily not survive. But those same children after receiving operations and extraordinary care do survive to live and grow without the continued use of extraordinary measures.

A physician must consider his motivation and intent when caring for a patient. The physician must keep conscious thoughts of the wonderful uniqueness of all human life. The doctor must consider the possibility of extending human life not merely prolonging the natural dying experience. Once the technical gadgetry of science merely prolongs the experience of dying, one can remove extraordinary means allowing nature to run its course. This is the realm of trust between a patient and physician or the family of a patient and a trusted physician. This position is not merely a manufactured euphemism for euthanasia but “real death with dignity.”

The question being debated is not the high value of human life based on the intrinsic unique value of humanity as being created in the image of God. The contemporary debate is not concerning cases where death is inevitable and imminent.

Today, the intent of medical personnel is the direct killing of the patient. Furthermore, members of the medical and paramedical personnel advocate the death of a patient by doing nothing when help and support would result in furthering life. Although circumstances may be difficult; the death of patients who can be helped is called “mercy killing.”

The crisis we are facing is the destruction of human individuals because they are socially embarrassing, imperfect, and unwanted. The human beings targeted are the infirm, the senile, retarded, insane and incontinence. When we come to this practice I have described; we enter the same realm as the Nazis.

This is precisely what is happening to the unborn. Many of the pro-abortionists have no medical concern whether the unborn baby lives. The reason for abortion is selfish and hedonistic. The unwanted child is merely inconvenient, uneconomical and embarrassing. Hence, the logical mathematical conclusion comes to death selection and genocide.

We are faced with arbitrary sociological law by the legislators and through the courts. Furthermore, the attitude of the medical profession has changed concerning the unique, intrinsic value of human life. Finally, there is a selfish apathy among the masses of people proclaiming “rights” as they grasp for a hedonistic lifestyle.

Several abnormal behavior patterns of mankind were present in the NAZI regime. The statements that follow are extracted from Richard L. Rubenstein’s book "The Cunning of History: Mass Death and the American Future."

“The destruction process required the cooperation of every sector of German society. The bureaucrats drew the definitions and decrees, the churches gave evidence of Aryan descent, the postal authorities carried the messages of definition, expropriation, denaturalization and deportation. A place [of execution was] made available to the Gestapo and the SS by the Wehrmacht. To repeat, the operation required and received the participation of every major social and political and religious institution of the German Reich.”

It is most important to realize that the medical profession had a leading role in planning and implementing abortion and euthanasia. Hitler’s progress in the extermination camps would have been greatly hindered if not stopped. It was the example and active role of the medical profession in Germany concerning the implementation of euthanasia which became the vehicle to fulfill the aspirations of Hitler. Large numbers of professional men in the medical community of Germany cooperated with Nazism.

Unfortunate minorities experienced the terror, genocide, and extermination programs in which not a few doctors participated. Members of the medical profession actively participated in barbaric experimentation on human beings.

Boston psychiatrist Leo Alexander was consultant to the Secretary of War in 1946 and 1947. He was on duty with the office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes in Nuremberg. Alexander outlined the problem in his paper “Medical Science under Dictatorship.” Alexander wrote about his vital concerns in 1949. We, in this generation, are facing the same vital concerns.

“Irrespective of other ideological trappings, the guiding philosophic principle of recent dictatorships, including that of the Nazis, has been Hegelian in that what has been considered ‘rational utility’ and corresponding doctrine and planning has replaced moral, ethical and religious values…”
“Medical science in Nazi Germany collaborated with this Hegelian trend particularly in the following enterprises: the mass extermination of the chronically sick in the interest of saving ‘useless’ expenses to the community as a whole; the mass extermination of those considered socially disturbing or racially and ideologically unwanted; the individual, inconspicuous extermination of those considered disloyal within the ruling group; and the ruthless use of ‘human experimental material’ for medico-military research.”
“It started with the acceptance of the attitude basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived…”
[Before Hitler came to power in 1933] “a propaganda barrage was directed against the traditional, compassionate, nineteenth-century attitudes towards the chronically ill, and for the adoption of a utilitarian, Hegelian point of view. Sterilization and euthanasia of persons with chronic mental illnesses was discussed at a meeting of Bavarian psychiatrists in 1931.”

Several members of the medical community embraced these principles before the rise of Adolph Hitler. Alexander declares that the opening wedge was when Hitler exterminated 275,000 “in these killing centers.”

Those persons whom Hitler killed were “the entering wedge for extermination…The methods used and the personnel trained in the killing centers for the chronically sick became the nucleus of much larger centers in the East, where the plan was to kill all Jews and Poles and to cut down the Russian population by 30,000,000.”

The aged, senile, infirm, mentally retarded, and defective children were the first to be killed. As World War II approached, the targeted undesirables included epileptics, children with badly modeled ears, World War I amputees, and children who were bed wetters.

In an effort to save society money; physicians took part in planning matters of life and death. Adults were propagandized through motion pictures such as I Accuse, which dealt with the issue of euthanasia.

Alexander made the following comments:

“The film depicts the life history of a woman suffering from multiple sclerosis. In it her husband, a doctor, finally kills her to the accompaniment of soft piano music rendered by a sympathetic colleague in an adjoining room. Acceptance of this ideology was implanted even in the children. A widely-used high school mathematics text, Mathematics in the Service of Political Education, Second Edition 1935, Third Edition 1936…includes problems stated in distorted terms of the cost of caring for and rehabilitating the chronically sick and crippled. One of the problems asked, for instance, is how many new housing units could be built and how many marriage-allowance loans could be given to newly-wed couples for the amount of money it cost the state to care for ‘the crippled and the insane.’”
Soon after Hitler came into power, the second most widely read edition of the textbook was issued in 1935. Alexander comments:

“The first direct order for euthanasia was issued by Hitler on September 1, 1939….All state institutions were required to report on patients who had been ill for five years or more or who were unable to work, by filling out questionnaires giving name, race, marital status, nationality, next of kin, whether regularly visited and by whom, who bore the financial responsibility and so forth. The decision regarding which patients should be killed was made entirely on the basis of this brief information by expert consultants, most of whom were professors of psychiatry in the key universities. These consultants never saw the patients themselves.”

Mauthausen was a Nazi concentration in Austria where 110,000 people were killed between 1938 and 1945. Pseudo medical experiments were conducted on people of several nationalities. To the Nazis, Jewish people were an unwanted economic and social burden. They were considered to be parasites which consumed more than what they contributed to society. The young, old, strong, and weak were eliminated in the attempt to improve society eventually bringing about a utopia. Individual people were no longer considered to have intrinsic unique value derived from God their creator. People were considered to be a commodity to be used, exploited, and discarded when no longer seen as something of value to the state.

The barbarism of Nazi Germany was not confined to the Jewish people. Gypsies, Slavs, Russians, German political and religious dissidents, as well as members of the resistance were targeted. Captives throughout the course of the war and children of the categories mentioned were targets of barbarism.

On October 10, 1943, Heinrich Himmler addressed an assembly of SS generals at Poznan. Himmler declared in his address, “Among ourselves it should be mentioned quite frankly, and yet we will never speak of it publicly…I mean…the extirpation of the Jewish race…this is a page of glory in our history which has never been written and is never to be written.”

The Cunning of History: Mass Death and the American Future was written by Fredrich Wertham. Wertham makes it perfectly clearly. People throughout the Germany willingly surrendered their own individual will and conscience to that of the state. The depersonalization and dehumanization which followed was not that the people of Germany were ideologically fanatical with hatred for the victims of Nazi barbarism. Primarily, they were indifferent to the fate of the captives of the Nazis.

Academic physicians were the persons who carried out the euthanasia programs. Often these men were professors in outstanding universities. Wertham indicates that they were not “mad” as one might speak of “mad” scientists. They embraced a world view of utilitarianism. They were more concerned about the cost of caring for patients as opposed to eliminating…killing them.

The organization specifically designed for the killing of children was known by the euphemism: Realm’s Committee for the Scientific Approach to Severe Illness due to Heredity and Constitution. Patients were transported to the killing centers by The Charitable Transport Company for the Sick. The Charitable Foundation for Institutional Care was ‘in charge of collecting the cost of the killing from the relatives without, however, informing them what the charges were for; in the death certificates the cause of death was falsified.’

Alexander gives a warning beneath the heading “The Early Change in Medical Attitudes.” It all began with the acknowledgement and belief in an attitude which asserts that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived.

This attitude is exactly what has been embraced in the medical community permeating the culture of our nation. The abortion / infanticide / euthanasia movement has embraced this pervasive attitude.

Furthermore, Alexander continues:

“But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which all this entre trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude towards the non-rehabilitable sick.”

This small wedge has opened doors which would have been inconceivable in the distant and near past.

Furthermore, Alexander declares: “It is therefore this subtle shift in emphasis of the physicians’ attitude that one must thoroughly investigate.”

The present culture embraces an attitude that all things are relative. This is the humanistic base of modern society. Consider how contemporary university students in the United States consider the era of Nazi totalitarianism. The comments that follow are quotations from Dr. Richard M. Hunt, associate dean of Harvard University’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

“I taught courses at Harvard for many years. I used to teach these courses from a straight historical perspective. Recently, I tried a new approach and I call the course, ‘Moral Dilemma in a Repressive Society: Nazi Germany.’ Through case studies of issues and personalities I try to present the Nazi phenomenon from the inside, so to speak, from the experience and testimony of those who lived through the period as victims, victimizers, bystanders, true believers, and members of the resistance.”
“To make a long story short, I was greatly surprised with the reaction of the students.. I had asked for personal interpretations of moral relevant dilemmas. In their end-of-term papers, it was not a matter of indifference to Nazi oppressions that I found. Nobody attempted to minimize or explain away Nazi excesses.”
“Rather what struck me most forcibly were the depressing fatalistic conclusions about major moral dilemmas facing the German people of that particular place and time in history.”
“Comments like these were frequent. ‘And with the ever present threat of Gestapo terror, who would dare to speak out and resist? Would you? Would I? Probably not!’”
“Most disturbing of all to me was the end of the line of such arguments. This point was reached by a few students who seemed somehow to realize the moral peril of such exculpatory judgments. Their way out was to lessen the responsibility of any individual by dispersing the guilt among all.”
“Clearly some trends of our times seemed to be running towards a no-fault, that is, a guilt-free society. One might say the virtues of responsible choice, paying the penalty, taking the consequences, all appear at low ebb today.
“Next time I teach this course, I hope to stress more strongly my own belief in the contingencies, the open-endedness of history. Somehow, I have got to convey the meaning of moral decisions and their relation to significant outcomes. Most important, I want to point out that single acts of individuals and strong stands of institutions at an early date do make a difference in the long run. I am through with teaching no-fault history.”

It is extremely difficult to know what is happening in our own contemporary era with the depth of perception one has after examining history. The euthanasia movement is pervasive and is well entrenched in western society. Some well meaning people are attracted to what may seem to be the benefits of the euthanasia movement. They think they are free of guilt but do not realize the logical consequences of their world view.

The ‘wedge principle’ cannot be easily dismissed for the first step is eventually followed by the second step. Consequently, if the first step is immoral; the following steps will be immoral. Even if the first step is moral; it does not follow that the second will also be moral.

In 1974, the World Conference on Population Control referred to an abortion as “a retrospective method of fertility control.” Hence, semantic legerdemain prepares us for accepting the unthinkable…the horrible. There are several euphemisms for abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia. Starving a child suffering from spina bifida (cleft spine) in England is referred to as putting the child on a “low calorie diet”!

Language is a powerful tool of potential manipulation and a subtle indicator of the direction in which our culture is moving. “Termination”, ‘discontinuing pregnancy, and ‘removal of fetal tissue” are euphemisms for abortion. Childless couples are spoken of as being “child free.” The term subtly indicates that children are unwanted burdens.

We gradually slip into times of monstrous inhumanity. Those persons who boldly declare moral tones of “freedom for the individual” and “rights” often do not know what they are starting. They see an isolated condition which they desire to accomplish while not considering the potential consequences of their course and direction.

Sunday, August 9, 2009

Resistance to Tyranny - Boston, Dec. 16, 1773

The outrage of American colonists burst into flame in the two decades following the French and Indian War. The principle of choosing representatives in colonial assemblies and towns meetings was firmly established from the earliest days of the colonies. The power to levy taxes by chosen representatives was welcome and not resisted. Colonists believed the British Parliament had no right to levy taxes upon them for they were not represented in Parliament. Members of Parliament had a different perspective believing in class representation. They believed that since tradesmen, farmers, lawyers, doctors, and merchants were members of Parliament; they spoke for all tradesmen, farmers, lawyers, doctors and merchants. When the dreaded Stamp Act of 1765 was imposed on the colonists; war with Great Britain became inevitable.

Reverend Jonas Clark related to John Hancock through marriage, urged townspeople to resist British trade and taxation. Furthermore, he counseled colonial leaders to arm themselves but also seek redress for the wrongs the colonialists suffered. Circular letters were carried on horseback throughout the colonies by the Sons of Liberty.

Richard Frothingham recounts how a committee was formed in Boston in November of 1772.

“A Town meeting was called in Faneuil Hall, to consider the question of the salaries of the judges…In the afternoon, Samuel Adams moved ‘that a committee of correspondence be appointed to consist of 21 persons, to state the rights of the colonies, and of this province in particular, as men, as Christians, and as subjects; to communicate and publish the same to the several towns in this province and to the world…”

“This Report, after long deliberation, was adopted. Six hundred copies were ordered to be printed in a pamphlet, and a copy was directed to be sent to every town in the province. A copy was sent to prominent Whigs in other colonies…”

“It considered the relations of man not only as a citizen, but as a Christian and claimed for him that equality which is the cardinal principle of Christianity. It claimed for him that equali, under law, the position to which he is entitled, - the right to make the laws under which he lives, to select his field of labor and enjoy its fruits, and thus claimed fair play for the industrial energy which has contributed so much to the growth and glory of this country…”

“A few sentences from these responses [to the Report] will show the spirit of the whole…’It becomes us to rely no longer on an arm of flesh, but on the arm of that all-powerful God who is able to unite the numerous inhabitants of this extensive country as a band of brothers in one common cause.”

Richard Frothingham, The Rise of the Republic, 1890.

Three ships were boarded by about 50 young men disguised as Indians and led by John Hancock. On the evening of December 16, 1773, forty-two chests of Bohea tea were dumped into Boston Harbor. Paul Revere was among the messengers sent in all directions with news of the Boston Tea Party. Samuel Adams sent Revere to Philadelphia before Christmas carrying the circular letter. A popular song was composed concerning the incident in Boston Harbor.

“We made a plaguey mess of tea
In one of the biggest dishes,
I mean we steeped it in the sea
And treated all the fishes.
Tol-le-lol-de-riddle, Tol-le-lol-de-ray,
And treated all the fishes.”

The 1 ½ tax rate of the Tea Act of 1773 was ridiculously small to incite rebellion. Furthermore, the Stamp Act and Townshend duties were memories by the time of the Tea Party.

Russell Kirk declared, if the revolution were “fought merely to avoid payment of a threepenny duty on a pound canister of tea…it would have been a bad miscalculation.”

“And actually the Tea Act had reduced the price of tea in the colonies. For although a tax of threepence per pound had been imposed on the importation of tea, at the same time the Act had abolished a previous duty of twelvepence a pound on all tea imported into England. Now tea might be re-exported to America, free of the twelvepence duty: net gain to the colonial tea drinkers, ninepence a pound in diminished taxation. The British government’s only purpose in demanding a threepenny tax at American ports was to assert the right of the King in Parliament to levy such duties if he so chose.”

“For a peculiar reason, nevertheless, this actual reduction in the price of imported tea was unpopular with certain vigorous Americans, particularly in Boston. For merchants had grown rich by smuggleing tea into the colonies, paying no duty at all. Now that the lawful price of tea had fallen, smuggling became unprofitable…

“What Whiggish America stood for was the long-established chartered right of the colonies to govern themselves.”

The Christian Statesman, Edmund Burke, became the powerful advocate of the colonists in the British Parliament. The dreaded Stamp Act was abolished by the House of Commons through the impassioned pleas of Burke and William Pitt. Burke directly attacked the policies of Lord North on April 19, 1774, when he delivered a stunning message against American taxation.

“When you drive him hard, the boar will surely turn upon the hunters. If that sovereignty and their freedom cannot be reconciled, which will they take? They will cast your sovereignty in your face. Nobody will be argued into slavery.”

In May more repressive laws were enacted by Parliament. The Port Bill to close Boston Harbor unless the colonists paid for the tea that was destroyed. Riders were sent throughout the colonies carrying a circular letter composed by Samuel Adams.

The Virginia House of Burgesses responded on May 24, 1774 by proclaiming June 1st as:

“a day of fasting, humiliation, and prayer, devoutly to implore the divine interposition for averting the heavy calamity which threatens destruction to our civil rights, and the evils of civil war; to give us one heart and one mind firmly to oppose, by all just and proper means, every injury to American rights…”

Boston was kept alive throughout the six months the harbor was closed through the response and assistance of her sister colonies. The southern colony of Georgia sent rice, supplies and financial assistance. Church bells tolled throughout the colonies while flags flew at half mast.

“When Lord Dartmouth took charge of the American department, the king sent to Lord North a sketch of such alterations in the administration of its affairs as he thought essential to give efficacy to the government. The first-fruit of this advice was probably the Rhode Island commission. The king’s next measure related to the duty on tea. This was inoperative. The Americans would not buy teas shipped from England; they would not live without tea; and hence illicit importations came in freely from Holland. The affairs of the East-India Company were in great confusion, and a portion of its financial troubles was alleged to be owing to the loss of the American trade in tea. The king now suggested a plan to relieve the corporation, and at the same time try the question with America.”

“Lord North in the House of Commons proposed (April 27, 1773) ‘to allow the company to export such portion of the tea then in their warehouses, to British America, as they should think proper, duty free.’ He moved two resolutions, providing on all teas imported to any British Plantations in America after the 10th of May, 1773, ‘a drawback be allowed of all the duties of customs paid upon the importation of such teas,’ which left the company to pay the threepence tax on the teas imported into America; and the resolutions provided that this importation should be made under licenses from the commissioners of the Treasury.”

“The measure roused no opposition, occasioned little, if any, debate, and was adopted. It was carried to the House of Lords on the 6th of May, adopted there also, and on the 10th received the royal assent. The ministry thought it a wise scheme to take off so much duty on tea as was paid in England, as this would allow the company to sell tea cheaper in America than foreigners could supply it; and to confine the duty here, to keep up the exercise of the right of taxation. ‘They,’ Franklin wrote, ‘have no idea that any people can act from any other principle but that of interest; and they believe that three pence on a pound of tea, of which one does not perhaps drink ten pounds in a year, is sufficient to overcome all the patriotism of an American.’”

“The opposition to arbitraty power was never so founded so much on knowledge and principle, was never so firm and systematic, as it was at the time of the passage of this Act…The directors, however, in August obtained the licenses from the Lords of the Treasury, and soon dispatched ships loaded with teas to the four ports of Boston, Charleston, New York, and Philadelphia…”

“The sceme was pronounced an attempt to establish the right of parliament to tax the colonies and to give the East-India Company the monopoly of the colonial market. As it bore on all the colonies, it diverted attention from the local issues, raised the past three years by Royal Instructions, to the original, general, and profound question of taxation. This had been argued in the court ofpunlic opinion: the verdict on it had been made up, and judgment had been rendered. The determination of the Americans not to pay a tax levied by a body in which they were not represented was as fixed as the purpose of the king to collect the duty on tea…The Americans of today will say that their ancestors showed great intelligence in being alive to these weighty considerations founded on right and justice, when the dominant party in England was dead to them, and a heroic spirit in acting up to their convictions. The scheme suddenly roused more indignation than had been created by the Stamp Act. ‘All America was in a flame.’ The mighty surge of passion plainly meant resistance.”

“The resistance contemplated was in general such action as might be necessary to thwart by lawful methods this ministerial measure. The idea had been grasped in America that there was a Constitution which limited the power of kings, lords, and commons…The conviction was deep and general that the claim of parliament to tax was against natural equity and against the Constitution. But political science had not devised the peaceable manner suggested by Otis, - an idea embodied subsequently in the powers vested in the Supreme Court of the United States, and familiar to the American mind. This tribunal declares such legislation void. The only was then to defeat an odious scheme was to collect an illegal tax was to follow the methods, as circumstances might dictate, of popular demonstration, which had long been customary in England, and thus render the law inapplicable...”

“The efficiency that could not come from general organization was supplied by the ripeness and fixedness of public opinion on the assumption involved in the claim of taxation and the Declaratory Act and the stern determination of the people not to submit to it. They did not rise up against the paltry duty because they were poor and could not pay, but because they were free and would not submit to wrong…”

The Excerpts above are from Richard Frothingham’s The Rise of the Republic, 1890

Philadelphia Tea Party - December 25, 1773

Contemporary Americans are familiar with the Boston Tea Party but are not aware of Philadelphia Tea Party which occurred in late 1773.

Both the Philadelphia Tea Party and the Boston Tea Party were the result of American colonists who were upset about Great Britain’s policies of taxation in the colonies.

The tax on tea infuriated American colonists; so English tea was boycotted for years throughout the colonies. Merchants throughout the colonies smuggled tea from the Netherlands.

The British East India Company appealed to the British government for financial relief. As a consequence, the Tea Act was passed on May 10, 1773. This act of Parliament allowed the East India Company to sell tea directly to the colonists without “payment of any customs or duties whatsoever” in England. Hence the much lower tax in the colonies would be paid.

Therefore, the East India Company could sell tea for half the old price and cheaper than the price of tea in Great Britain. The Tea Act enabled the East India Company to undercut the prices of the smugglers and merchants throughout the American colonies.

Although the tea tax of the Revenue Act of 1767 was not official repealed; the Tea Act was designed to lower the price of tea. Consequently, the colonists were infuriated. Benjamin Franklin expressed the sentiments of American colonial leaders who believed the British were attempting to use cheap inexpensive tea to “overcome all the patriotism of an American.”

By September word was received throughout the colonies that shipments of East India Company tea would arrive on the east coast. Dr. Benjamin Rush, Colonel William Bradford, Thomas Mifflin, and Dr. Thomas Cadwalader and other leaders of Philadelphia, organized a town meeting which occurred on October 16th in the Pennsylvania State House (Independence Hall). Eight resolutions were adopted by the Philadelphians. One of the resolutions declared: “That the duty imposed by Parliament upon tea landed in America is a tax on the Americans, or levying contributions on them without their consent.”

“That the resolution lately entered into by the East India Company, to send out their tea to American subject to the payment of duties on its being landed here, is an open attempt to enforce the ministerial plan, and a violent attack upon the liberties of America.”

The eight resolutions are enumerated in David Ramsey’s work History of the United States, 1816

The citizens of Philadelphia adopted eight resolutions on October 18, 1773:

1.That the disposal of their own property is the inherent right of freemen; that there can be no property in that which another can, of right, take from us without our consent; that the claim of parliament to tax America, is, in other words, a claim of right to levy contributions on us at pleasure.

2.That the duty, imposed by parliament upon tea landed in America, is a tax on the Americans, or levying contributions on them, without their consent.

3.That the express purpose, for which the tax is levied on the Americans, namely, for the support of government, administration of justice, and defense of his majesty’s dominions in America, has a direct tendency to render assemblies useless, and to introduce arbitrary government and slavery.

4.That a virtuous and steady opposition, to this ministerial plan of governing America, is absolutely necessary, to preserve even the shadow of liberty; and is a duty which every freeman in America owes to his country, to himself, and to his posterity.

5.That the resolution, lately entered into by the East India Company, to send out their tea to America, subject to the payment of duties on its being landed here, is an open attempt to enforce this ministerial plan, and a violent attack upon the liberties of America.

6.That it is the duty of every American to oppose this attempt.

7.That whoever shall, directly or indirectly, countenance this attempt, or, in any wise, aid or abet in unloading, receiving, or vending the tea sent out by the East India company, while it remains subject to the payment of a duty here, is an enemy to his country.

8.That a committee be immediately chosen, to wait on those gentlemen, who, it is reported, are appointed by the East India Company, to receive and sell said tea, and request them, from a regard to their own character and the peace and good order of the city and province, immediately to resign their appointment.

The Pennsylvania Gazette printed the declarations which became the first public protest against the importation of taxed tea from England. Three weeks later a town meeting in Faneuil Hall, Boston declared, “That the sense of this town cannot be better expressed than in the words of certain judicious resolves, lately entered into by our worthy brethren, the citizens of Philadelphia.” Consequently, the Bostonians adopted the same resolutions the Philadelphians promulgated earlier in the year. Within a few weeks; the Boston Tea Party became an event in American history.

The British ship Polly sailed up the Delaware River and reached Chester, Pennsylvania on December 25, 1773. Captain Ayers’ ship Polly carried 697 wooden chests of tea which were consigned to the Quaker firm of James & Drinker of Philadelphia. The Polly was intercepted by large number of gentlemen of Philadelphia who escorted Captain Ayers into the city. Two days later, 6,000 Philadelphians met at the State House to address the situation. This was the largest mass meeting of American colonists which were assembled up to that point in American history. The first resolution of a number of resolutions adopted declared “that the tea shall not be landed.” Furthermore, the tea would be refused and the Polly must make its way out of the Delaware River and the Delaware Bay without delay.

A broadside issued by the “Committee for Tarring and Feathering” warning the captain of his fate if the tea were to be unloaded probably influenced Captain Ayers. The handbill dated November 27th declared:

“You are sent out on a diabolical service; and if you are so foolish and obstinate as to complete your voyage by bringing your ship to anchor in this port, you may run such a gauntlet as will induce you in your last moments most heartily to curse those who have made you the dupe of their avarice and ambition. What think you, Captain, of a halter around your neck – ten gallon of liquid tar decanted on your pate – with the feathers of a dozen wild geese laid over that to enliven your appearance? Only think seriously of this and fly to the place from whence you came – fly without hesitation – without the formality of a protest – and above all, Captain Ayres, let us advise you to fly without the wild geese feathers.”

Furthermore, river pilots were warned that they would receive the same treatment if they attempted to bring the Polly into the harbor of Philadelphia. If the consignees of the tea accepted the shipment of tea; they would reap dire consequences. The Polly was refitted with provisions and water and returned to England with their cargo of tea.

The Philadelphia Tea Party was relatively nonviolent. The merchants of Philadelphia experienced no loss nor was the cargo of tea destroyed. Local merchants may have actually helped Captain Ayers with the expenses of returning to England.

The Philadelphia Tea Party was one of the incidents which led to the calling of the 1st Continental Congress the following September at Carpenter’s Hall, Philadelphia. In 1809, Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote the following comments to John Adams:

“I once heard you say [that] the active business of the American Revolution began in Philadelphia in the act of her citizens sending back the tea ship, and that Massachusetts would have received her portion of the tea had not our example encouraged her to expect union and support in destroying…..The flame kindled on that Day [October 16, 1773] soon extended to Boston and gradually spread throughout the whole continent. It was the first throe of that convulsion which delivered Great Britain of the United States.”

The excepts that follow are from Richard Frothingham’s book The Rise of the Republic, 1890.

“The exultation was scarcely less outside of Massachusetts…The Tea Act had the effect to make this question of taxation a living issue…The popular leaders now sought to give direction to a great movement; or to take advantage of a happy disposition in the public mind and extend the organization of committees of correspondence…The popular party, in their several municipalities, proceeded independently in forming committees…”

“The resistance to the ministerial scheme in this way was general, systematic, and thorough. The newspapers contain much matter relative to the reception of the cargoes at the ports to which the tea was consigned. In Philadelphia, at an hour’s notice, five thousand met, and resolved that a cargo should not be landed, but should go back in the same bottom. The captain and the consignees bowed to the popular will, and a vast concourse escorted them to the tea ship and saw her sail.”

“In New York, it was announced in the Tory organ that arrangements were made to have the tea sent back in the same ship, and thus New York be secured ‘a succession of that blessed tranquility which they enjoyed under the present wise and serene administration’. In Charleston a great meeting on the arrival of the cargo appointed a committee, - on which were Christopher Gadsden, Charles Pinckney, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, - to inform the captain that the teas must go back; but the ship was delayed beyond the twenty days, when the collector seized the vessel and stored the tea in a damp cellar, where it was destroyed. There were similar dealings with the teas in other places. The scheme was thoroughly defeated.”

Wednesday, August 5, 2009

The Mayflower Compact -1620

In the name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread sovereign Lord, King James, by the grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland king, defender of the faith, etc., having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the Northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; and by venture hereof to enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal laws, ordinances, acts, constitutions, and offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general good of the colony, unto which we promise all due submission and obedience. I witness whereof we have hereunder subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the 11 of November, in the year of the reign of our sovereign lord, King James, of England, France, and Ireland the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth. Anno Domine 1620

John Carver, William Bradford, Edward Winslow, William Brewster, Isaac Allerton, Miles Standish, John Alden, Samuel Fuller, Christopher Martin, William Mullins, William White, Richard Warren, John Howland, Stephen Hopkins, Edward Tilly, John Tilly, Francis Cooke, Thomas Rogers, Thomas Tinker, John Ridgdale, Edward Fuller, John Turner, Francis Eaton, James Chilton, John Craxton, John Billington, Joses Fletcher, John Goodman, Digery Priest, Thomas Williams, Gilbert Winslow, Edmund Margeson, Peter Brown, Richard Bitteridge, George Soule, Richard Clark, Richard Gardiner, John Allerton, Thomas English, Edward Doten, Edward Leister.

Nathaniel Morton, William Bradford’s nephew, supplied the list of 41 male passengers in his 1669 New England’s Memorial.

The mouth of the Hudson River was the original destination of the Mayflower. The land was granted in a patent from the Crown to the London Virginia Company. The “strangers” were colonists which were not members of the congregation of religious dissenters. They held the position that since the settlement was not in the Virginia territory which was agreed upon they “would use their own liberty; for none had power to command them.”

Consequently, the congregation of religious dissenters chose to establish a government.

Even though the signers of the compact were not the majority; the settler’s chose to establish a social contract in which the settler’s consented to follow the rules and principles established by the compact.

Liberty or Death - Patrick Henry, 1775

Mr. President: It is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth – and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourself how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation – the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us into submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can by meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned – we have remonstrated – we have supplicated – we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending – if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained – we must fight!! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts, is all that is left to us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak – unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir,. We are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature has placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged. Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable – and let it come!! I repeat it, sir, let it come!!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. 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 to 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!

In 1760, Patrick Henry studied law for a month and had the boldness to ask for a license to practice law. The license was granted to him at the age of twenty-four. There was a condition attached to the license: he was to extend his studies before undertaking the profession of practicing law. Three years later he argued the celebrated “Parson’s Cause” case. His arguments were so brilliant the courtroom audience bore him upon their shoulders in triumph.

Patrick Henry’s “Liberty or Death” exhortation was made in 1775 after he served as a delegate to the first Continental Congress in Philadelphia. He proposed that Virginia organize its militia and put the colony of Virginia in an attitude of defense. His proposal was adopted unanimously after the delivery of this speech. Patrick Henry was a champion supporting the Bill of Rights but declined a United States Senatorial seat in Congress. Furthermore, he declined the nomination to become Secretary of State. He also declined the position of Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.