Tom Haynie: Would fight for freedoms

Tory or rebel? Which would you have likely been in 1775?

An excellent question, although the word "rebel" might not be the best in this case.

Yes, our nation's founders rebelled against King George III's harsh taxes, but these were not the ordinary run-of-the-mill rebels such as we saw at Woodstock in the 1960s or many other such rebels.

Seeking basic freedoms cannot be compared with specific selfish desires such as demanding the right to marijuana, for example. To lump them all into the class of "rebel" does a disservice to those with truly admirable cases.

So saying, the question brings up another important point.

The labels "conservative" and "liberal" are dependent on the time and place they are used. For example, Jesus would have been considered a liberal in his day by the Pharisees, while the Sadduccees would have seen him as conservative. The same views for which the Pharisees saw him as liberal, though, are the same views for which modern true followers of Jesus are called conservative (and yes, even ultra-conservative by modern liberals).

So modern liberals bash modern conservatives for views that are mild compared to those of our Founding Fathers. Yet those Founding Fathers would have been considered liberal by the Tories of 1775! It's a matter of relevance to the era.

Ultimately, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" mean very little until they are attached to the present relevance.

The Torries favored high taxes. They could afford to, since many of them were rich and most of them were far from poor.

They favored loyalty to King George at all costs. Those who remembered that their reasons for coming to the new country were to find religious and personal freedoms were true to their cause, and yes, rebelled against a king who wanted to extend his harsh taxes and demand adherence to his laws that kept personal freedoms from the people.

Two sets of peoples came from Britain to the new country: Those who were tired of the king's tyranny and wanted freedoms not allowed in the old country, and those who saw a way of making money off the new colony of people here. The latter were the Tories who didn't need to fight for liberties because they had them. Wealth produces its own freedoms. The former were not about to allow the king's tyranny to chase them across the ocean without a fight. Thank God, who gave them strength to win!

I guess you know what I would have been in 1775!

King George III Won: Happy Fourth of July! | War Is A Crime .org

The Declaration of Independence is best remembered as a declaration of war, a war declared on the grounds that we wanted our own flag. The sheer stupidity and anachronism of the idea serves to discourage any thoughts about why Canada didn't need a bloody war, whether the U.S. war benefitted people outside the new aristocracy to whom power was transferred, what bothered Frederick Douglas so much about a day celebrating "independence," or what the Declaration of Independence actually said.

When you read the Declaration of Independence, it turns out to be an indictment of King George III for various abuses of power. And those abuses of power look fairly similar to abuses of power we happily permit U.S. presidents to engage in today, either as regards the people of this nation or the people of territories and nations that our military occupies today in a manner uncomfortably resembling Britain's rule over the 13 colonies.

Or perhaps I should say, a large portion of us take turns being happy or outraged depending on the political party with which the current president is identified.

"We have been sliding for 70 years to a situation where Congress has nothing to do with the decision about whether to go to war or not, and the president is becoming an absolute monarch." Thus spoke Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D., N.Y.) on the floor of the House recently, some years after having refused to back the impeachment of President George W. Bush, thus facilitating the slide toward the current situation.

Daniel Ellsberg, the whistleblower who leaked the Pentagon Papers 40 years ago, recently commented that President Nixon had finally won. Although Ellsberg was acquitted of criminal charges, the facts made public, and Nixon compelled to resign, all of the abuses of power Nixon faced possible impeachment and prosecution for have now been legalized (or made acceptable practice): warrantless spying, searches and seizures, baseless secrecy, assassination attempts, etc. By the same logic, King George III is as big a winner as Richard M. Nixon. A quick survey of the charges brought against King George III on July 4, 1776, is illuminating:

President Obama dictated the terms of a health insurance reform bill to Congress, a bill that makes it much more difficult for states like Vermont and California, that want to, to actually provide their people with healthcare, unless they get special permission from Obama. Similarly, Obama has threatened to prevent states from legalizing marijuana, supported federal law that prevents states from granting their gay citizens full marriage rights, etc. But it is when we look abroad that we truly see the resemblance to King George III, as U.S. presidents dictate to the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. The people of Iraq have wanted independence since 2003. When President Bush imposed three more years of war three years ago, Senator Obama objected to the unconstitutional treaty made without the advice or consent of the Congress. Now President Obama's concern is how to stretch the occupation out beyond the end of this year. The Iraqis still can't see any dawn's early light.

George III, America's last king

King George III, English monarch

George III, king and politicians, 1760-1770

Memoirs of the reign of George III to the session of Parliament ending A.D. 1793

King George III