Skip to comments.Arsonist: The Most Dangerous Man in America by Nathan Allen
Posted on 01/03/2015 7:28:10 AM PST by cotton1706
In this landmark work of history, Arsonist reveals the secret role of one man who challenged the foundations of feudalism and instigated the American Revolution.
James Otis was disgusted by the anti-democratic feudal structure of society and threatened to set it all in a flame though, he confessed, he too would likely be consumed in the fire. By the winter of 1760, this provincial bourgeoisie, one of the wealthiest and most intelligent men in the British colonies, had become fully radicalized. That his words a promise and a prophecy came to full fruition and his predictions about the province and his own life were entirely accurate would be unbelievable if it didnt actually happen.
After an analysis of colonial political, social, legal and religious evolution prior to Otiss threat, Arsonist provides a detailed, lively illumination of the issues and personalities involved in overthrowing the local government of the worlds greatest empire. A group of largely forgotten men Otis, Sam Adams, Oxenbridge Thatcher, Jonathan Mayhew, Thomas Cushing, Patrick Henry conceived the new country, after which men such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton midwifed it. The conception of the new nation, so vital yet so ignored, occurred in the violent though fertile grounds of Boston and Virginia in the 1760s. And no one was so instrumental to that conception as James Otis, Jr., the forgotten infantry soldier who made the generals glory possible.
(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com ...
James Otis Jr. of Boston challenges the existing oligarchy, shaking the British Government to its very foundations, laying the groundwork for the American Revolution.
So I guess we're to conclude that being "radicalized" is really a good thing, after all.
America had thousands of founders most of which we either barely know their names or will never know their names.
But why is the review written using Marxist terminology?
Very interesting. Thanks for posting.
—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, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.
2. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.
3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.
Any of those, with the exception of the anarchistic bit, might apply to some extent to the Founders.
The Founding was a radically conservative Revolution. It overthrew the British government in the name of protecting the root principles of inalienable human rights.
Radical is a perfectly good word. No reason why Marxists should be allowed to appropriate it for their exclusive use.
Private property rights are an endangered species in the UK and the UN would do the same to us by way of Agenda 21.
Maybe it's an attempt to not let
the other side define the discussion; maybe it's
the other side equating dissent from government to evil.
I don't know.
In the context of the time, I think radical is indeed an appropriate word, for the ideas being espoused took a sharp turn from the prevailing wisdom and orthodoxy, that general warrants should be illegal, that men should hold only one office at a time, that there was higher law than acts of Parliament, that those in power should be criticized and even ridiculed, these were truly radical.
my objection isn't to the meaning of the word. Must I exert myself to point out that meanings are meaningless in the age of mass media? It is associations and perceptions that move people. In the popular mind, there is no difference between a Jihadi and a Minuteman (I count 8 of the latter in my lineage) if the hot word of the day is "radicalized".
This misapplication -- or redefinition -- or radicalization, if you will -- of language isn't merely something journalists titillate one another (and torture everyone else) with. It has seeped into the mind of the generation now starting a career making any communication beyond the most superficial nearly impossible; and ensuring that the young mind interprets history through a Marxist filter. So I have observed. And since language is the medium of the mind, the ramifications for the proper intellectual formation of this generation are ominous indeed.
I should have been clearer. Not “radical,” but “bourgeoisie.” Pure Marxist.
However, “bourgeoisie” simply means middle-class. With the exception of the southern planters, who I suspect thought of themselves as gentry, I think all the Founders would have been fine with the reference. (Etymologically, bourgeoisie means “townsman,” much like the German or English burgher. During the Middle Ages the townsman were the only people outside the feudal structure of serf, vassal and lord.)
B. Franklin certainly was. One of the greatest defenders of middle-class values in history. That’s essentially what Poor Richard is.
At the time, the attack on “middle-classness” came mostly from above. The aristos, or wannabees. Not too long after the assault on MC values from the “intellectuals” started, in theory in defense of the poor. It still continues and is coming perilously close to an ultimate victory.
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.