Skip to comments.Was George Washington A Domestic Terrorist?
Posted on 07/11/2014 11:58:42 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
the American revolution was violent and it was illegal. - Bill Ayers, Co-Founder of Weather Underground.
Radicals compare themselves to Americas Founding Fathers. However, its hard to envision George Washington cowering behind a bush while pressing a detonator. In battle, Washington rode on horseback, completely exposed, leading his army of citizen soldiers into leaden clouds of heavy musket balls fired from sneering, massed English troops bent on dealing death and mayhem. But, Washington was no stranger to valor. Prior to the War for Independence, Washington displayed the heroism which was to become his hallmark when, during the Battle of Monongahela, he was so exposed to enemy fire that two horses were shot from underneath him and his coat was pierced by four musket balls. A petty criminal like Bill Ayers is reduced to the stature of a tapeworm in the shadow of General Washington. It is breathtakingly ironic that radicals compare themselves to the founders of a society that they are desperate to destroy.
Radicals like Ayers lurk in the shadows, hurl bombs at innocents, and then flee the scene of the crime. Conversely, Americas founders stood before God and king and made their cause known and their intended actions plain.
The American Revolution began with Americas intellectual and social elite. It was not a mob action, but an orderly defense of human rights by men and women of dignity and means. They were not a desperate mob of lemmings but leaders in political theory, thoughtful, temperate, highly educated, with their lives and fortunes at risk. The American Revolution was not a bottom up enterprise. Though the continental army was composed of citizen soldiers from every walk of life, the founders were characterized by greatness and produced the most noble and unique political document in human history. In a world characterized by violence and slavery, they made the promise of equality before the law a fait accompli.
Unlike our Founding Fathers, domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers employ violence based on illusory provocations and as a matter of course. The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms states: "We, for ten years, incessantly and ineffectually besieged the Throne as supplicants; we reasoned, we remonstrated with Parliament, in the most mild and decent language." Additionally, the violence perpetrated by the Weather Underground was indiscriminate in its application and, therefore; engineered to impel political change through fear and intimidation. Criminals like Ayers employ the use of propaganda to lend a veneer of legitimacy to their cause such as claims of atrocities in Vietnam or American imperialist intentions in that region. Any criminal behavior by military personnel in Vietnam were prosecuted by Military Court Martial. What justice did Ayer's brand of indiscriminate violence bring to anyone allegedly victimized in Vietnam? Furthermore, the charge of imperialism is absurd on its face, since American forces were demonstrably in South Vietnam to secure the same natural rights for the Vietnamese people that we in America enjoy. What has been the result of our withdrawal, the stated aim of terrorists like Ayers? Slavery to a totalitarian state and poverty.
But, the American Revolution was based on claims well known to be true at the time and set forth with reason and logic. The Declaration of Independence details the complaints against the Crown and the rights infringed upon:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
The founders made no spurious claims to patently false claims. Men like General Washington were impelled to force of arms by the direct infringement of their own natural right to life and liberty. The founders' appeal was to the law of nature and to nature's God. Resorting to arms was an act of personal and national self-defense clearly based on natural law principles elucidated by men like Samuel Rutherford.
Rutherford and the Bible teach that the power of government is devolved from God for a specific purpose. Governments are legitimate so long as they serve the Divine function of rewarding the good and punishing evil. If a government ceases to reward the moral good as defined by Divine revelation then its grant of power and authority ceases; it has perverted its proper ministry and becomes itself evil. If a government denies its people their natural liberty they are morally obligated to avail themselves of political means to alter that form of government. If liberty is denied at the point of the sword, then citizens become morally obligated to take up arms in defense of their inalienable rights.
Was George Washington a domestic terrorist? The question should, at this point seem absurd. Washington and the rest of the founders were reacting to a threat to their liberty that was immediate and deadly. They were characterized by self-sacrifice and humility, not the hubris of a creature like Bill Ayers who agitated for and materially contributed to bombings resulting in the deaths of innocents.
Radicals like Ayers are murderers whose innocent victims are slain with malice-afore-thought, with violence often an end in itself. After all, Bernardine Dohrn, wife of Bill Ayers, coldly commented about the Tate-LaBianca murders,"First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into the pig Tate's stomach! Wild! Dohrn, Ayers soul mate, also stated, The Weathermen dig Charlie Manson. The words of a patriot? Hardly. By their fruits you shall know them. The radical left has delivered murder, mayhem, poverty, and human misery. Our founders created a bastion of liberty and prosperity which is the envy of the world.
If he was it was George Bush’s fault. Notice I didn’t specify George 41 or George 43.
Three Georges. Like that big freakin’ dam in China.
Are we done yet? I hate articles like this. It makes people who go to college and spend astronomical amounts of money learning drivel feel like they are doing something worthwhile, and in the main, they aren’t. But they inevitably end up in positions of power and influence over everyone else, and the time they spent pondering blithering drivel like this is time they could have learned something useful, or at least intelligent.
The definition of terrorism doesn’t fall within the spectrum of God-given rights. So no. He wasn’t.
Well...he was a British Soldier...following in the footsteps of his bro...and under the guidance of Lord Fairfax.
MOST EXCELLENT POST!!!
Nope, Geo Washington led an organized army authorized and duly appointed by the colonial continental congress. The British recognized that they were an organized army and referred to them as being in rebellion as rebels, not terrorists.
No, in the eyes of king George, he was treasonist.
When are we going to acknowledge that Ayers isn’t a radical now. He and his wife make good money, have a prestigious positions, don’t have to hide, are close friends of the president. And their beliefs are the beliefs of big business and the majority of the population.
Ayers fancies himself a man of honor?
FU Devil Worshipin, Satanic Inspired, Kommunist.
Washington sought to create a country where the individual right could not be infringed and that all men were equal to whatever life they chose.
You represent a collectivist ideal, in which the individual is subsumed to the collective.
Further, he shot at soldiers who worked as henchmen, as well a few Germans, who sought a similar ideal.
you and your ilk murdered innocents and police officers.
you also celebrated that krazy Kat Charlie and thought dining on the body of a dead woman, who was carrying a baby.
you have no concience.
Washington was a man of honor.
FOAD of a disease that is painful and wracks your body with all kinds of boils and postules.
Guerilla? Sure thing.
Terrorist? No way.
It’s impossible for George Washington to be a “domestic terrorist”. Even if George Washington was a terrorist of any sort (which he clearly wasn’t) he would have been colonial terrorist not a domestic terrorist.
George Washington fought for the right of Free Citizens to have a Government to work for them. Not Impose on them.
Billy Ayers was and still is a future American Stalin. Do what we say. Or else.
Contrast this (the Delcartion of Indpendeance) http://youtu.be/13jLQ_-3c8o?t=10m
And the Communist Manafesto
Karl Marx's "10 Planks" to seize power and destroy freedom:
Abolition of Property in Land and Application of all Rents of Land to Public Purpose.
A Heavy Progressive or Graduated Income Tax.
Abolition of All Rights of Inheritance.
Confiscation of the Property of All Emigrants and Rebels.
Centralization of Credit in the Hands of the State, by Means of a National Bank with State Capital and an Exclusive Monopoly.
Centralization of the Means of Communication and Transport in the Hands of the State.
Extension of Factories and Instruments of Production Owned by the State, the Bringing Into Cultivation of Waste Lands, and the Improvement of the Soil Generally in Accordance with a Common Plan.
Equal Liability of All to Labor. Establishment of Industrial Armies, Especially for Agriculture.
Combination of Agriculture with Manufacturing Industries; Gradual Abolition of the Distinction Between Town and Country by a More Equable Distribution of the Population over the Country. v Free Education for All Children in Public Schools. Abolition of Children's Factory Labor in it's Present Form. Combination of Education with Industrial Production.
Why would they do that? Weren't America's Founding Fathers (according to them) "evil, patriarchal, white slaveholders?"
The government/FedState is a domestic batterer and terrorist.
That is a very broad interpretation of the AR. Leaving out many issues and other Casus belli.
A precursor to the AR was the Regulator conflict in North and South Carolina. Most certainly there was 'mob' and bottom up action because of the corruption built into the local and regional government.
Those problems spread, and the general action of the AR in Northern parts of the country occurred in similar form, but happened to have richer reactionaries and land holders. They simply organized the rage better.
Of course, Ayers has never broken the law.....(s)
He didn’t go around brutally murdering those monarch loving civilians and burning their houses and crops ...
Nope. King Barry . . . err Georgie . . . broke his social contract with the colonists. King G failed to protect their natural rights; therefore, the colonists had the right to break ties with him. In the Declaration the colonists respectfully requested a peaceful breakup, but King G denied that request. A war was fought as the result of King G’s poor choices.
Saw Ayers and quit reading.
Awesome Read Bump
If I had the money it would be a price on ayers head.
What made the English monarchy legal? “Divine Right of Kings’’? If anything it was the Crown that was illegal.
From King George’s standpoint, certainly. And from a purely objective standpoint, what Washington and the Minutemen and all the rest of the Revolutionaries did was no different than what the Underground did in WWII or the VC did in Viet Nam.
And I for one am glad a handful of our colonists had the guts to do what they did. The whole world is their beneficiary.
If they had lost — and make no mistake, that was always a distinct possibility — history would read much differently. Not just for us blokes ‘ere in the Western Colonies, but all over Planet Earth.
It depresses me to no end that a studied comparison of the differences between Bill Ayers and George Washington even has to be written.
What’s next, a clinical deconstruction of the differences between rat turds and nuclear submarines?
I believe you are a poor student of history. Washington and the militia engaged in open combat with British and Hessian regulars. There were guerrilla tactics used, but not by the Continental Army. Washington knew full well that he had to defeat the British openly in order to be considered legitimate.
No, they were not. Terrorism is the deliberate targeting of non-combatants in an effort to destabilize society by pointing out the existing government’s inability to protect. There is nothing particularly ambiguous about it, and Washington, et al, don’t qualify.
Concord was "open combat?" The Brits were ambushed from the side of the road, and harassed all the way back to Lexington. And the attack at Trenton was hardly "open combat," since most of the Hessian mercs were drunk. And it was the middle of the night.
You're trying hard to apply a different standard to "our" guys than you would to someone else. But the fact is, the Revolutionaries could easily be classified as terrorists.
But that's just a label. The cause for which they fought was just. I think the world -- and even the vanquished British -- would ultimately admit that. But then you get into an "end justifies the means" argument.
Personally, I don't care what label you slap on the Revolutionaries. And I don't care what equivalencies you draw between them and today's so-called freedom fighters. We won. And I am the heir to that legacy -- both good and bad.
The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list
There were also some guerrilla actions taken, similar to what the French and their Indian allies did against the Brits and colonials in the Seven Years' War. They met them straight up at the Concord Bridge and on the Green at Lexington; they did harass them from the bushes on their trek back to Boston, though.
They were dug in at Bunker and Breeds Hill and did not form lines as did the Brits...does that count?
No...they were not terrorists.
The actions of the Continentals were only illegal from the British perspective. It's not a surprise that Ayers would seize on an opportunity to express his anti-Americanism.
Revolutions are always legal in the first person, such as “our revolution”. It’s only in the third person, “their revolution”, when they’re illegal.
Gee, and here I thought this was going to be another screed about how evil GW was because he had slaves.
Guess I was wrong!
I don’t think you read any of the article.
Actually he was never much of a guerilla.
Someone has been watching “1776”! LOL
The communist crypto-muslim we have now would be at the extreme opposite of our first President.
The Patriots that perpetrated the Boston Tea Party destroyed over a million dollars worth of tea, and caused the King much distress.
Standing around waving flags is great, but to be effective protest must produce a negative impact on the oppressor.
Every year! (Except this one — I didn’t notice if it was on ... then again, there was a Batman marathon on MeTV....)
It was on again, TCM. I was too busy but we recorded and watched later this week.
You still do not understand the difference between lawful combatants (soldiers) and terrorists. One targets the armed forces of the enemy while the other targets civilians.
Washington was not involved in Lexington, nor Concord. Do you consider Yorktown to be a terrorist act? How about Ticonderoga? Breeds Hill? Cowpens?
“The following year he led another expedition to the area to assist in the construction of a fort at present-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Before reaching that point, he and some of his men, accompanied by Indian allies, ambushed a French scouting party. Its leader was killed, although the exact circumstances of his death were disputed. This peacetime act of aggression is seen as one of the first military steps leading to the global Seven Years’ War.”
Yes I know, but generally he fought under “European” standards, because he had to. Indeed in the backwoods it was hard to fight anything but “guerrilla”, and he learned alot from Indians, but in the RevWar despite all the myth-making, the rebel forces almost always fought conventionally. The most unconventional part about Washington was his sneakiness with leaving the enemy behind unawares. He was trying to save his armies. Guerrilla warfare was basically just for very small skirmishes, and that is because muskets simply do not lend themselves to surprise and hiding. So the fighting depended on the ground.
Mixing guerrilla and conventional forces then would’ve been like the mixing of technology in WWI. It simply couldn’t happen in the RevWar; whereas WWI shows just how disastrous and awful mixing technology and methods can be.
At any rate, when the dust settled, a French emissary was dead and hostilities began.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.