RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: The Rights of Witnesses

Bill of RightsThe Rights of an American Citizen: With a Commentary on State Rights, and on the Constitution and Policy of the United States by Benjamin Lynde Oliver published 1832

PART II; OF SOME PARTICULAR RIGHTS

CHAPTER VI: Of the Rights of Witnesses

As society is organized for the protection of the persons, and the security of the property and rights of its members, each individual may be considered as undertaking on his part, to conform to all the regulations, which the government may think it expedient to introduce, for the more readily obtaining of those important objects.

Among these regulations may usually be found one, which gives every individual a right to call on others to give testimony, in any cause which may arise before the tribunals of justice, in which his rights are concerned.

This right of calling on witnesses, is one of the greatest importance; because, without it, no man would be able to obtain redress by law, for any injuries which might be offered to him, for want of evidence; unless he was so fortunate as to find volunteers, who would step forward of their own good will to give testimony in his favor. The law therefore provides a process, by which a party in any cause may compel the attendance of witnesses, so far as may be thought necessary to secure their testimony. But, as it would be unreasonable to compel a witness to neglect his own affairs, and to be at the expense and trouble of going from his place of residence, and living at board during his attendance on the court, provision is made by the law for the indemnity of the witness in all these respects.

A witness therefore is under no obligation to attend court at all, unless he is summoned by a regular subpoena, stating the cause in which his testimony is wanted, and served by a regular officer, and also has sufficient money tendered him to defray his charges, or, at any rate, such allowance as is provided by the statute law, whether such allowance is more or less. If such a sum is tendered him, he will be obliged to attend so many days as it is a legal allowance for, unless he is sooner dismissed. But, it seems, he is under no obligation to make advances ; and therefore, after the money which has been paid him is expended, or rather, after the time has elapsed, for which the money so paid is a legal allowance, he is under no obligation to remain in attendance upon the court, unless a further advance is made to him.

Though a witness, when summoned, is obliged to attend court if his expenses are tendered, yet the notice ought not to be so short that, in order to comply with it, he must break off suddenly from his business; the notice should be a reasonable one, so that he may not be put to any inconvenience from the mere circumstance of its being unexpected.

So, a witness is entitled to a reasonable time to convey himself from the place where he is summoned, to the court which he is to attend. As there is no allowance made him by law, for coach hire, turnpikes, Sic. it would seem that he is under no obligation to pay such charges; indeed, he may be unable to do it. Unless therefore some suitable conveyance is provided for him, he can be under no obligation to go any otherwise than on foot, and on the common county road. And as the law estimates a day’s travel on foot, at a certain number of miles, (say twenty) if the witness, as soon as he is summoned and receives his advance, sets out and travels at the rate of twenty miles per day towards the place where the court is sitting, it will be difficult to make out against him a case of contempt for not attending at an earlier day, though perhaps he might have arrived in half the time by taking the stage coach. The default is in the party who summons him; for, either he should have given an earlier notice, or furnished the witness a. suitable conveyance, or advanced him an additional sum for that express purpose.

A witness is usually allowed for a day’s attendance, though he may not actually attend in court five minutes; and if he is obliged to attend court on two or three different days, he is entitled to one full day’s attendance on each.

A person must be summoned, in order to be subject to examination as a witness. And therefore, if an individual should happen to be in court, without having been summoned, and one of the counsel in a cause should call upon him to be sworn and give his testimony, he may refuse to be sworn, without being guilty of any contempt, and has a right to depart without molestation. ,

Where a married woman is summoned, the fees must be tendered to her, and not to her husband.

A witness summoned to attend court, is entitled to the protection of the court, against all arrests, while going to court, or attending upon it, and in returning, if he uses common diligence and expedition, without being obliged either to take the shortest road, or to make use of more than ordinary dispatch.

This protection will be granted, either by a writ of protection, which the witness may have by asking for it, and which it will be a contempt of court for any officer to disobey, by arresting the witness after it is shown to him; or, if the witness has never applied for the writ, and is arrested, the court, on motion, will discharge him. This protection, however, is afforded against arrests on actions brought for causes of a civil nature only, but will not protect the witness from arrests, on warrants for breaches of the peace, &c.

A witness, when called upon to testify, is supposed to be entirely disinterested, because the smallest pecuniary interest in the event of the cause, will be a sufficient cause of exception to disqualify him as a witness. To ascertain whether a witness is interested or not, he may be asked that question, or the testimony of others may be brought to prove it. But, if the question is made to the witness, and he denies it, it is not permitted afterwards to introduce the testimony of others to contradict him.

As no person will be permitted to give testimony, by which he will discharge himself from any species of legal accountability by throwing that burthen on another; but, if he is wholly and absolutely discharged himself, from such accountability in any legal way, will immediately become a competent witness, it has become a common practice to qualify an interested witness, by releasing him, if there is a cause of action against him, so that he becomes entirely indifferent to the result of the suit.

It frequently happens, also, where an action is brought against a wrong party by mistake, either of the law or the fact, that the person against whom the action ought to have been brought, if used as a witness, would clear the defendant by making himself chargeable. To the competency of such a witness, the plaintiff in such case can never make any valid objection, because he is called upon to swear against his own interest.

But, it may be asked, is a witness bound by law, to testify against his own interest in this way? May he not decline to answer any questions, the answers to which may be given against him either in a civil action, or on a criminal prosecution?

With regard to such questions, as if answered one way, tend to incriminate the witness, he is entirely at liberty to decline answering them. But, this is held to be the privilege of the witness alone. The counsel of the parties have no rights on this subject. The witness may refuse to answer the question or not, at discretion. As a matter of prudence, however, the witness ought to take care to object to answering the first question in relation to such objectionable subjects of inquiry; for, it has been held, if he answers to part, he may be compelled to answer to the whole, whatever the consequence may be. See 1 Moody and Mai. 47.

PrecedentThis doctrine however seems to be laid down too broadly; for, the only reason why a witness who has answered to part, shall be compelled to tell the whole, is, that a partial statement may do great injustice to one of the parties. But, the answer is, that, where part is told, and the rest is inaccessible, the part told is no evidence at all to the jury. Thus, the court will not suffer part of a deed, where the rest is torn off, to be shown to the jury as evidence of a contract; because it is impossible to tell what the effect of the whole would be. Suppose a witness, after he had been examined originally, should die in a fit before his cross examination, would not the court generally instruct the jury to pay no regard to his testimony, though possibly there might be some excepted cases? The doctrine of the case cited, it would seem, ought to be restricted to cases, where a witness, with a full knowledge of his rights, to refuse to answer all questions tending to incriminate himself, voluntarily testifies to part of a transaction, &c. Here he may be compelled to answer to the whole, without any violation of principle ; since, by answering the first question, he, of his own accord, relinquishes the protection which the law affords him. Ld. Ellenborough, in the case Jean Peltier, remarks : ‘I think it is the office of the judge to suggest to a witness, that he is not bound to answer anything which will incriminate himself; and if a judge were not to remind a witness of that circumstance, he would neglect his duty.’ It would therefore be a good rule to establish, that a witness does not relinquish the protection of the law in any case, by a partial answer, unless the court has given him notice in the manner suggested by Ld. Ellenborough.

It is held, that questions may be put to witnesses on a cross examination, tending to degrade them, for the purpose of trying their characters, unless the answers to such questions may expose them to punishment. 1 Moody and Mal. 10S. The inference is, that the witness will be bound to answer any such questions. In New York, however, it has been held, that a witness is not only not bound to answer any questions, the answers to which may expose him either to a civil or criminal prosecution; but, it seems, he is under no obligation to answer any questions, the answers to which may have a tendency to degrade or disgrace him. See 1 Johns. R. 498. Whether such questions ought to be permitted to be put, does not seem clearly settled. For, it is not the same thing to allow the question to be put, and leave the witness to answer, or not, at discretion, and to refuse to permit such questions to be put at all. The decisions on this subject cannot easily be reconciled with each other. In one case, the court would not suffer the question to be put to a witness on a cross examination, whether he had not been put in the house of correction. 4 Esp. R. 225. On the trial of James Watson for high treason before the king’s bench, the general doctrine in relation to this subject, was held to be: 1. That if any question is put to a witness to shake his credibility, he may refuse to answer it. If he answers, you must take the answer, and will not be allowed to impeach it. A witness who has received a pardon for a crime, or who has been prosecuted, and the prosecution is put an end to, is not bound to answer any questions in relation to the subject. No evidence will be received to show that a witness has committed infamous crimes, for the purpose of impeaching his character and testimony, short of the record of conviction; because the court will not try collateral issues, which might be endless. If a question is asked a witness, whether he has not committed a particular crime, and he refuses to answer; though this may have its effect on the jury, yet it is not sufficient to discredit him in law, or render him incompetent. It seems to be the settled practice in England to permit such question to be put, and leave the witness to answer or not, as he pleases.

In Phillips’ treatise on evidence, however, a case is mentioned where, a witness being asked on a cross examination, whether he had not been tried for theft, refused to answer, and appealed to Ld. Ellenborough, whether he was bound to answer. Ld. Ellenborough said, :If you do not answer I will commit you,’ adding, ‘you shall not be compelled to say, whether you were guilty or not.’ 1 Phil, on Evi. 269, in notis. In New York, it seems, no public officer is bound to answer any questions in relation to his official conduct, the answer to which may tend to impeach his integrity. See 1 Johns. 498.

Whether a question tends to incriminate a witness or not, it is held, not to belong to the court to decide, but to the witness himself. Because, the court cannot know beforehand the facts and circumstances, which may be necessary in order to decide whether it may or may not, have such a tendency. For, though a question apparently may not have that tendency at first, yet, it may be the first link of a chain which has. See 2 Nott. and Mc. Cord. 15. In Burr’s trial, it was held, that a witness may be required to answer on oath, whether he thinks answering a question will tend to incriminate himself, before he will be allowed to decline to answer it. With regard to questions, the answers to which may expose the witness to a civil action, or may be given in evidence against him, in any action, which may afterwards be brought either by or against him, the law does not seem finally settled. Under this general class, a variety of cases are comprehended, which, in their decision, would seem to involve very different considerations. For, Erst—the answer to the question may be obviously and indispensably necessary to the plaintiff in the action, for the maintenance of his suit, or, it may be thus necessary to the defendant’s defence, in a civil action, or the prisoner’s defence, on a criminal prosecution; if it is not answered, therefore, there must be a failure of justice. Second—the answer, though it may be directly injurious to the interest of the witness, may be wanted by one of the parties, for the mere purpose of strengthening an argument of the probability or improbability of a certain fact, which is material to his cause. Here there is a greater or less probability, according to the circumstances of each particular case, that there may be a failure of justice in consequence of not obtaining an answer from the witness. The rule, in these cases, it is obvious, must be grounded on the same principle. It may be remarked here, that, in these cases, if the witness is compelled to testify, no injustice can be done to him by it in fact, because he is bound to answer nothing but the truth. He does not therefore create a cause of action against himself, but merely furnishes evidence against himself, by which an action may be maintained against him. But, however, it has been held, that though one who conveys land, may be a witness to prove that he had no title, he is not compellable to give such evidence. 2 Ld. Raym. 1008. By the law of Scotland, it seems, a witness is not held to answer against his interest; and in such case, it is held to be the duty of the presiding judge, to inform him of his right. Tait on Evi. 429. In Pennsylvania it has been held, that a witness is bound to answer any questions the answers to which do not render him liable to a criminal charge, or tend to degrade him. In the case of Baird v. Cochran, Tilghman, Ch. Jus., ruled the law to be so, and observed, that’ every man may be compelled on a bill filed against him in equity, to declare the truth, though it may affect his interest; why then should he not be compelled at law, except where he is a party to the suit’? This is a most unfortunate analogy, ox rather there is a great want of it in the two cases. A man who has a bill filed against him in equity, is compelled to disclose; to maintain the analogy, a defendant in an action at law, ought to be compelled to disclose. This, however, is not contended for; but it is contended, that a witness ought to disclose his interest, in an action at law between third persons: there would be some ground for analogy, if a third person were compelled to disclose his interest in a suit in equity between third persons. But the true ground of the argument is, that as a person may be compelled to disclose in equity, by bringing a bill in equity against him, there is no hardship in compelling him to disclose the same interest, in an action at law between third persons. But there is a striking difference between being compelled to answer questions on a cross examination, as a witness on the stand, and giving answers to interrogatories, with the direction and assistance of legal counsel at the elbow.—See 4 Serg. & R’ 397.

In Connecticut, it is settled, that a witness shall be protected from answering questions, which subject him to a civil suit or debt. See More v. Hathaway. 3 Con. R.

Third—the question may be wholly immaterial to the issue, so that, whether it be answered affirmatively, or negatively, or not at all, it will have no effect whatever on the result of the action or prosecution. In this case, it is obvious, there will be no failure of justice in the cause then in hearing, if the witness should decline answering. It may be remarked, also that, if the witness should see fit to answer, he cannot be convicted of perjury, though he should swear falsely; because perjury can only be committed by swearing falsely in relation to something which is material to the issue. For, though it is settled that perjury may be in a mere circumstance, yet it must be one that is material to the issue, though it is not necessary that it should be decisive. So held by Ld. Holt. See 10 Mod. 195. Carth. 422. 2 Ld. Raym. 889.

It has been held, that a subscribing witness to a note, may be compelled to testify to that fact, though he may be bail for the defendant; but, if he is not a subscribing witness, he would be at liberty to testify or not. See 1 Strang. 406. This is on the principle, that a subscribing witness undertakes to testify when called on, and cannot by his own act destroy the party’s right to his testimony. As to the question, what papers or documents a witness, who has been summoned by a subpoena duces tecum, [A subpoena duces tecum is used to compel the production of documents that might be admissible before the court. It cannot be used to require oral testimony] is bound to produce, no general principle appears to be settled, which will apply to every case that may arise. It seems, however, that a witness is not bound to expose his own title deeds. Such is the settled law in England, because, by exposing his deeds, he may disclose a flaw in his title. The same reason does not seem to apply in places where title deeds are recorded; but, as a copy of a title deed may at any time be had by applying to the registrar, there seems to be no reason, why a person should be compelled to produce his title deed, unless there is some other object, than to obtain a knowledge of its contents. So, it is held that a witness ought not to be compelled to produce his private books, relating to his private transactions. See 1 Str. 646.

So, a trustee, to whom it is suggested the plaintiff has conveyed his estate in trust, may demur to the production of the title deeds. 2 Stark. R. 203.

So, a solicitor to a third person will not be compelled to produce the deeds of such third person, where it may be prejudicial to his interest. 1 Starkie, 95. For, generally, an attorney is not at liberty to disclose communications made to him by his client, whether the client is or is not a party to the cause before the court. See 2 Camp. 578. In these cases, it may be remarked, that this is the client’s privilege; and, it will seem that, where any such confidence is recognized by the law, the witness will not be called on to testify, nor even permitted to do so. And therefore the client’s interpreter cannot be examined as to communications, made through him to his counsel. And, from a regard to a similar principle, a woman after her husband’s death shall not be examined as to conversations, had between herself and her husband during his life time. And for the same reason, a woman, after a divorce, cannot be called on to give evidence of conversations previously had between herself and her husband. See 1 Ryan and Moody, 198.

It has been held, that, under a subpoena duces tecum, a witness is under no obligation to produce private papers in his custody. 1 Esp. N. P. Cases, 405. In the case referred to, Ld. Kenyon denied the general position, that, in such case, a witness might be required to produce every paper in his possession, which did not tend to incriminate him, because it would ruin millions. See 1 Esp. N. P. Cas. 405. However, it seems impracticable, to lay down any general rule or principle as to the production of papers and documents. In Amty v. Long, Ld. Ellenborough observes, that ‘though it will always be prudent and proper, for a witness served with such a subpoena, to be prepared to produce the specified papers and instruments at the trial, if it be at all likely, that the judge will deem such production fit to be there insisted upon; yet, it is in every instance a question for the consideration of the judge at nisi prius (fn1), whether, upon the principles of reason and equity, such production should be required by him; and, of the court afterwards, whether having been there withheld, the party should be punished by attachment.’ 9 East. 485. The question as to the obligation of the witness to produce papers, is therefore to be decided by the court, according to the circumstances of each particular case. But, this is to leave the subject wholly unsettled, because the opinion or discretion of different judges, as to the same facts or circumstances,. is found to be different, and indeed the same judge is sometimes found to entertain different opinions at different times. Thus, when the question was made on the trial of Ld. Melville, whether a witness was bound to answer a question, the answer to which would subject him to a civil action, four judges held that he was not, and eight judges held that he was. As this is a case, where a similar principle is involved, if it had come up at nisi prius, the witness might or might not have been held to answer; according as one of the four, or one of the eight judges happened to preside. If the law is so unsettled, therefore, on this subject, and a case should occur, where the witness should be called upon to violate the sacredness of private confidential correspondence, or, to render himself liable to a civil action, it might be well for him not to be too hasty, either in the answering of questions, or in the production of papers. It has been said, and there seems to be no improbability in it, that Ld. Keith, in his answer to a question proposed to him, as a witness in an insurance case, subjected himself to damages to the amount of ten thousand pounds sterling. If a case of any considerable importance, therefore, should arise, the witness must by no means rely upon the court to protect his rights, unless he claims them. For, if he neglects to assert his rights, the court will take for granted that he waives the objection, and consents to produce the letters, and to answer the objectionable questions. Many things take place in this way, in the course of a trial, which would immediately be overruled by the court, if an exception were taken to them, regularly and in season. But, in most cases, the witness not being acquainted with the precise extent of his rights, does not know what he may legally insist on, and what he cannot. Sometimes, therefore, it happens, that no objection is made, and the irregularity passes off without notice, as if done by consent. In any such case, therefore, the witness should state his objection to the court, and if of great consequence, should request delay, in order to obtain the advice and assistance of counsel to argue it, and, if it should be overruled by the court, and it becomes necessary for the protection of his rights, and the court is one of inferior jurisdiction, he may appeal, and if his appeal should not be allowed, and he is confident that his objection is a legal one, he may take the hazard of disobeying. For, if he is committed in consequence, he may bring his habeas corpus, when, if his objection is legal, he will be discharged. If a witness should be called on to produce papers, put into his custody by a third person, who had a right to call for them when he pleased, it would be very proper to give immediate notice of the subpoena, to such third person, that he might adopt such measures as he saw fit. .If in consequence of it, the owner were to replevy [To regain possession of by a writ of replevin] them (though it has been held that at common law replevin does not lie for charters) there does not appear to be any way of coming at them. But the law does not seem to be settled.

It is apparent that the rights of witnesses in some respects, are not so much regarded, and consequently, not so well protected as they ought to be, from whatever cause it may arise. No reference is here had to the circumstance, that a witness is compelled to neglect his own affairs, for the purpose of traveling to and attending upon the court, to give testimony in a cause in which he has not the slightest concern; because this is for the benefit of one of the parties in the cause, and, is the consequence of a regulation, of which he will have the advantage himself, if he ever has a cause in court. But, it is intended to allude principally to the mode of examining witnesses, by way of cross examination, as it is sometimes seen practiced, and, for any thing that appears, may always legally be done, but seldom justifiably.

The legitimate objects of a Cross examination, are among others, 1. To enable the party against whom a witness is brought forward to testify, to elicit from him any circumstances which attended the transactions to which he may have testified; but which he may have omitted, or had no opportunity to mention on his direct examination. 2. By a series of close and judicious interrogatories, respecting the minute circumstances attending such transactions, to ascertain whether the witness is testifying to a story, which he has either fabricated himself or concerted with others. 3. To determine in the same way, supposing the witness to be honest, how far his observation, memory, and discrimination can be depended on. 4. On the supposition, that he is a dishonest witness, to exhibit him in that light to the jury; by compelling him to invent new falsehoods at every question, in order to keep his story consistent with itself, until he is involved unconsciously, in absurdity, impossibility, and self-contradiction. The advantages of a cross examination in all these respects, are obviously very great. In an examination in chief, it is a general rule, though there are some exceptions, that the questions should be very general, so as not to intimate to the witness what he is desired to say, nor to prompt him, nor to lead him, nor to put answers in his mouth. After the direct examination is finished, which terminates as soon as the witness has testified sufficient for the examiner’s purpose, because it is part of the professional tactics, observed on such occasions, not to push to the inquiry further, as well because it is unnecessary, as because something unfavorable may come out, the cross examiner considers it his duty to draw out what has thus been omitted, which frequently gives a different color to the case. On a cross examination, therefore, the advocate has a right to make use of questions of a much more direct and particular nature, than are usually allowed on an original examination. The advantage of this mode of examining a witness, in detecting a concerted story, sworn to by the witness on his direct examination, is very great; a few moments of well directed cross examination, being sufficient to expose the most ingeniously contrived fabrication. This is done by a close inquiry into minute circumstances, without which no real event ever happens, and which, if remembered, may readily be sworn to by an eye witness. But minute circumstances are seldom concerted in a false relation, and the witness, if interrogated in relation to them, is obliged to rely on his power of extemporaneous creation, to keep his testimony consistent. The consequence is, that the consciousness of adding falsehood to falsehood, accompanied with the fear of detection, exposure and punishment, soon throw him into a state of perceivable embarrassment, and perhaps inextricable confusion. A witness sometimes falls into a similar situation, from having answered a question on his direct examination, with too little precision, either from heedlessness or vanity, though without any unfair intention whatever. In a case of this kind, which occurred on the trial of Hardy, for high treason, a witness, who was a dancing master, being asked whether there had been a subcription for a certain individual imprisoned; answered, ‘ Yes; perhaps I gave a shilling or half a crown, or a guinea or five guineas towards his relief.’ Being afterwards cross examined down to, ‘but I might have given half a crown,’ and being further urged with perplexing questions on the subject, he said, ‘I would as soon give one as the other for a poor family in distress.’ Ch. Jus. Eyre then gave him the following reproof and caution. ‘You have brought yourself into a scrape, only for the sake of a flourish. When you are upon your oath, if you would only speak plain English, you would be under no difficulty. There is a great difference between a shilling, and a guinea, and five guineas, therefore you should not have conveyed an idea, that you did not know whether you gave one shilling, two shillings, one guinea or five guineas. I would advise you, when you are upon your oath, never to speak by metaphor,’ &c.

With regard to the mode of examining witnesses, it may be further remarked, that it is not considered proper, though it is a very common practice, to state direct propositions to a witness, with the tone of a person asking a question, and to require an answer to it, as if it were really a question. On this account, Mr. Justice Abbott checked the examining counsel in the trial of Isaac Ludlam for sedition; ‘You must not,’ says he) be angry with the witness, if what he says is not an answer, when you do not put a question.’ It is also a frequent practice in cross-examining a witness, to state interrogatively to him, propositions consisting of a variety of circumstances, some of which are true and some false. This is unfair and ensnaring; for, if he gives a general denial, intending that the whole is not correctly stated, it may be argued, that he has denied that part which is true. On the other hand, if he gives a general assent, intending it only for that part which he thinks material and which is strictly true, if the slightest inaccuracy can be detected in the whole proposition to which he has assented, it may be urged against him to impeach his credit. A witness for his own security, in any such case, would do well, to make no reply to propositions which are not questions, and, where the question is embarrassed with a variety of particulars, should request the examiner to simplify his question, or should ask, ‘what is the question,’ which will induce him to put it in a more simple form, and directly to the purpose. It is a common practice also with some, when examining a witness, to interlard their questions with comments and observations. This irregularity is also much censured by the court; particularly by Ch. Jus. Eyre, and Ld. Ellenborough. It is also considered unfair and a breach of decorum, While the counsel on one side are examining a witness, for the counsel of the opposite party to make use of grimaces or gesticulations, expressive of surprise, as holding up the hands, &c. In Watson’s trial for high treason, the court declared, that they would animadvert very severely upon such conduct. In the course of the same trial, Ld. Ellenborough checked Mr. Wetherell for improper treatment of a witness, and observed that he would not suffer injustice to be practised upon a witness by counsel. IMr. Jus. Abbott, also remarked on another occasion during the same trial, ‘ Every witness is entitled to the protection of the court from insulting questions and observations.’ 32 St. Tr. 291,298.

It sometimes happens, that the result of a trial depends upon a particular fact, which is sworn to by a single witness only. When this is the case, every legal measure possible is resorted to, for the purpose of impeaching his credit with the jury, so that they may set his testimony aside, and find their verdict for the party against whom he testifies.

For this purpose, persons may be called to testify, that the general reputation of the witness for veracity is bad. But they can only be asked general questions in relation to the subject, i. e. as to their opinion of his character for truth, and the grounds of that opinion; but, it would seem, that they ought not to be permitted to state particular facts against the witness. See 2 Starkie, 241.

The testimony of the witness may also be impeached by showing, that he has previously done or said something, inconsistent with what he now testifies. But, before introducing testimony of this kind, the witness must be asked, whether he has said or done that particular thing, so that he may have an opportunity to deny, or admit and explain it; and contradictory testimony ought not to be admitted until he has had this opportunity. See the opinion of Abbott, Ch. Jus., in the Queen’s Case; 2 Brod. and B. 312.

A witness cannot be cross-examined as to any collateral independent fact, irrelevant to the matter in issue, for the purpose of contradicting him, if he answers one way, by another witness, in order to discredit his whole testimony. In such cases only general questions can be put. If, however, the witness should answer, his answer cannot be contradicted by other witnesses. For, this would lead to the trial of collateral issues, and might be endless. See 7 East, 108. 2 Campb. 637.

Nor can a witness be cross-examined as to facts not in issue, if such facts are injurious to the characters of third persons, not connected in the cause. 1 Car. and P. 100.

The court will protect a witness from questions put through impertinent curiosity, and much more, if it seems probable, that any unfair use may be made of them. See the opinion of Tilghman, Ch. Jus., in the case of’ Baird v. Cochran. 4 Serg. and R. 397. See also, 1 Car. and P. 363.

Every witness is entitled to ordinary civility, at least, from the examining counsel; since, whether he is willing or not, he may be compelled to attend the trial by the process of the court, and if he refuses to answer proper questions, may be fined and imprisoned for the contempt. He is not at all, in legal contemplation, under the control of the examining counsel, except so far as the court sanctions and authorizes the questions put by him, and, in case of any illiberal treatment, has a right to claim the protection of the court, which is readily afforded when there is a suitable occasion for it and it is claimed decently and respectfully. If the ill treatment is gross, or the witness does not seem to be aware that he has a right to this protection, the court will interfere of their own motion, as where any opprobrious epithet is bestowed on a witness, whether merited or not. It would certainly be singular, if the judges should permit their court to exhibit a scene of indecent altercation between the examining counsel and a witness. In the trial of Mr. Hardy, both Mr. Erskine and Mr. Gibbs were checked by Ch. Jus. Eyre, for addressing the witness by the epithet of spy, though he was in fact a government spy, and an informer. 24 St. Tr. 751.

It is plain, therefore, that those professional gentlemen mistake the purpose of a cross-examination very much, who waste . the time and patience of the court, jury and witnesses, by asking a thousand frivolous and unmeaning questions, which have no bearing on the merits of the cause. When such questions are asked, the court cannot always stop them, because they cannot tell beforehand, whether something may not be made of them in the address to the jury. If therefore they are not absolutely illegal questions, and the witness makes no objection, the court commonly does not interfere. It frequently happens, in consequence, that the witness not knowing his own rights, and believing himself bound to answer every question whatever that is put to him, makes no objection to answer, and if he finds himself insulted by an offensive question, instead of asking the opinion or protection of the court, resorts to ill-tempered and petulant answers. But, when it is found that, after all this parade of questioning, no use can be made of the answers, let them be made which way they may, being wholly foreign to the case before the court, the judges and jury very naturally feel disgusted, because they perceive their attention has been kept in suspense without any other object than the gratification of the examiner’s vanity, in having all eyes directed towards him during the examination. These useless questions furnish the occasion for the sarcasm of Swift, which is in substance, that if an action at law is brought for a cow, the decision of the case does not depend upon the inquiry, whether the cow belongs to the plaintiff or to the defendant, but whether the cow is a black cow or a red cow, or has long or short horns.

It is to be much wished that the law, with regard to the examination of witnesses, were altered in the respects following, viz:

1. That witnesses should never be called for the purpose of impeaching the testimony of a witness, by giving testimony against his character for veracity. This is a most unjust practice, and though sanctioned by long usage, is contrary to legal analogy. For, in this way, the reputation of the witness is attacked in a suit between third persons, in which he has been compelled to testify, and, for aught that appears, may have told the exact truth. This is done without any previous notice to him; and, if he had received notice, he is entitled to no process to compel the attendance of his witnesses, not being a party to the suit. If his enemies are summoned as witnesses against him, they have an opportunity of aspersing or disparaging his character in this respect, with perfect impunity. The defence of his character, is left entirely with one of the parties in the suit, whose principal if not sole object, is merely to gain his own cause, and who may or may not feel interest enough to endeavor to establish it. His feelings and character may therefore be grossly injured without the possibility of redress.

2. That all questions, the answers to which tend to disparage a witness, should be overruled by the court; for, if the subject of the question is known, it may be proved by others; and if unknown, the witness is tempted to perjure himself, and thus preserve his character. But, if he acknowledges what is insinuated against him, then he establishes his veracity, instead of destroying it; because a person who will not be guilty of falsehood for his own sake, can hardly be supposed willing to practice it for the sake of another.

3. That personal questions, addressed to the witness relative to his private affairs, should not be put until the examiner has made it appear probable, that the ends of justice cannot be obtained without an answer to them.

4. That witnesses should never be examined under oath, but each witness should be affirmed under the pains and penalties of perjury. There could then be no objection to the competency of atheists; nor of children, however young; but the credit of the witness, in every case, would be left where it ought to be left, with the jury, and-crimes, which may now go unpunished on account of the inadmissibility of certain testimony, would then be subject to legal animadversion.

fn1. A court of nisi prius is a court that tries questions of fact before one judge and, in some cases, a jury. In the United States, the term ordinarily applies to the trial level court where the case is heard by a jury, as opposed to a higher court that entertains appeals where no jury is present.

Continued in CHAPTER VII: Of the mode of obtaining redress for any infringement of civil or political rights, committed either by the officers of the General Government, or of any of the State Governments.

See the other parts of this series:
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: General Rights; Division One
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: General Rights; Division Two
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: General Rights; The Social Compact
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: The Powers delegated to the General Government in the Federal Constitution
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: Powers delegated to the State Governments
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: The Independence of the States
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: The rights reserved to the people of the United States
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: Of the right of suffrage and of elections
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: The Liberty of Speech and of the Press
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: The Power of Courts to punish for Contempts
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: The Law of Libel in relation to Public Officers
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: The Rights of Juries
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: The Rights of Witnesses
RIGHTS OF AMERICAN CITIZENS: The mode of obtaining redress for infringement of civil or political rights

THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS by Charles F. Partington 1836

Amendment 1; United States Constitution – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

printing-press-tyrants-foe

When contemplating the liberties, freedoms and protections afforded United States Citizens by the Constitution and Bill of Rights: Remember the Free Exercise of Religion was the first to be protected by the Framers. The Religion Clause in the First Amendment was meant to keep government out of religion, not to keep religion out of the public square or government.

Remember also when one right, liberty, or freedom is under attack, they are all under attack, when one is in jeopardy, they are all in jeopardy! The Second Amendment is meant to guarantee the First Amendment!

THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS by Charles F. Partington 1836

Censorship
This great bulwark of national as well as individual freedom is now better understood, and its rights admitted, than at any previous period in the history of the world. Properly speaking, it means the right that every man possesses to print whatever he chooses, though without at all taking from the laws the power of punishing him for the abuse of that liberty.

To make the liberty of the press real, two things are essential; 1, that the laws against its licentiousness should be precise and clear; 2, that they should only punish what is really injurious to the public welfare.

The laws against treason under Tiberius, against heresy under the inquisition, against irreverence under Catharine II., against conspiracy under the convention, against infringements of the royal dignity, and contempt of government in various states, are very indefinite, and allow the greatest tyranny.

The laws for punishing abuses of the press are generally directed against attacks upon the government or its officers, upon the reputation of individuals, and upon good morals and religion. The latitude allowed to the press of course will vary with circumstances. A discussion will be permitted in England which would be punished in Austria. Discussions of certain religious topics are considered in one age blasphemous, while another age esteems them innocent. As to charges affecting the character of governments and individuals, we may observe that the freer a government is, the less sensitive it is, and the less sensitive are the people who live under it. No governments arc so indifferent to being publicly spoken of as the British and American, whilst the Prussian code contains many laws against verbal offenses. As the liberty of speech is unquestioned, and printing only gives permanence and circulation to what might be freely spoken (newspapers, for instance, take the place of speeches and conversations in the forums of the petty states of antiquity), the right of printing rests on the same abstract grounds as the right of speech; and it might seem strange to a man unacquainted with history, that printing should be subjected to a previous censorship, as it is in most states, any more than speaking, and that the liberty of the press should be expressly provided for in the constitutions of most free states. But when we look to history, we find the origin of this, as of many other legislative anomalies, in periods when politics, religion, and individual rights were confusedly intermingled. It is only since men’s views of the just limits of government have become clearer, that the liberty of the press has been recognized as a right j and to this country is the world mainly indebted for the establishment of this principle, as of so many other bulwarks of freedom, though the Netherlands preceded us in the actual enjoyment of the liberty of the. press.

When we consider the practical effect of a censorship, it is no more defensible on that ground than on the ground of abstract right. In what times and countries have morals and religion, and the reputation of individuals, been more outrageously attacked through the press, than in those in which the censorship was established? We are far from considering the liberty of the press as without evil consequences ; but the censorship does not prevent these consequences, while it destroys the numberless benefits of an unshackled press. But the liberty of the press, properly considered, is not to be treated as a mere question of political expediency. Liberty of conscience and liberty of thought are rights superior in importance to any objects which fall under the head of expediency.

Representative governments are empty forms without the liberty of the press. The free discussion of all political measures, and of the character of public officers, is of much more consequence than the freedom of debate in legislative assemblies. A parliament would be a comparatively small chock upon a government, were it not for the liberty of the press. In fact, it might easily be made an instrument for enforcing oppressive measures; since a government would find little difficulty in gaining over a majority of such a body by the motives of ambition and avarice, were it not for the control exercised over legislative bodies by a free press. Without this, publicity of discussion in legislative assemblies would be of little avail. In fact, representative governments, without the liberty of the press, are a mockery. This liberty is, indeed, the great safeguard of all others; and a whole dynasty was lately prostrated in a struggle with this formidable power. Polignac’s Report, which caused the revolution in France of 1830, will ever be memorable in the history of the liberty of the press, as proving the difficulty or impossibility of a minister’s ruling in opposition to public opinion in a country where the press is free. In this country, the liberty of the press, soon after printing was introduced, was regulated by the king’s proclamation?, prohibitions, charters of licence, &c, and, finally, by the court of star-chamber. The long parliament, after their rupture with Charles I., assumed the same power. The government of Charles II. imitated their ordinances, and the press did not really become free till the expiration of the statutes restricting it in 1694, after which it was found impossible to pass new laws in restraint of it, and it has remained free ever since. A licence is required both in France and this country. Here it is easily obtained; but a late law in France, since the revolution of July, 1830 has required very high security.

See also: LIBERTY OF THE PRESS by Senator Edward D. Baker 1811-1861

BENEFITS OF THE REPUBLICAN EXPERIMENT IN AMERICA by Thomas G. Alvord 1810- 1897

bald_eagle_head_and_american_flag1The ideas of the American Republicanism of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America in the History of the World is essentially brand new. Never before in the history of mankind, nor in any other place on the globe has a government been founded on the principles of a government of the people, by the people been attempted. We are unique among nations and among civilizations in the history of mankind. When you hear politicians talk about the “failed policies of the past” they cannot be talking about the policies and principles on which these United States of America were founded. Since they cannot be talking about the policies and principles of our Founders then they must be talking about those that have so apparently failed in our present history.

See more about the failed policies of the past:
The Failure of Marxism and Socialism
Obama’s Nazi Youth Campaign Slogan “Forward”
The Doctrine of Fascism, Fascism Defined by Benito Mussolini

Thomas_Gold_Alvord_IThe United States of America Jubilee An Oration By Hon. Thomas G. Alvord. Delivered At The Centennial Celebration, Syracuse, New York, July 4th 1876.

People Of The City Of Syracuse And County Of Onondaga.— We in common with every portion of our wide extended Union, have come together to recognize with suitable observance and commemoration the solemn act which one hundred years ago, gave form, shape and solidity to our government by declaring us a nation independent, self-reliant and free.

In the performance of this duty we might relate the political history of the unwise legislation, the oppressive execution of tyrannical laws, the coercive power of irresponsible government which compelled our fathers first to passive, next to armed resistance, and finally culminated in a severance of our political dependence on the mother country, and gave to us that Declaration of Independence whose one hundreth anniversary we have met to honor. We might rehearse the names and virtues of the patriots of the revolution in the forum and in the field, the courage, endurance and trials of those who participated in that protracted and bloody controversy which ended in making our Declaration of Independence a perfect deed, indefeasible, guaranteeing forever to those worthy to enjoy it, the rich inheritance of a free government. We might portray the battle fields of the past, brightening the dark gloom of defeat with the view of unflinching courage, indomitable endurance and an undying determination to struggle ever for success, and we might paint victory as it perched on the banner of our fathers with that halo of glory which time has not dimmed, neither will history forget the undying results of which, which in the final triumph (as we use them) may and we trust will endure for the benefit of all mankind, until the last trump shall summons the inhabitants of earth to another world, and this habitation of ours shall pass away forever. We might content ourselves with a plain and simple historical relation of all the events which clustered around, mingled with and made up the panorama of our revolutionary struggle, the intelligence of our people alive to all the minutiae of event, individuality and result of that memorable period, would lend a glow, kindle an ardor and inspire a joy palpable and demonstrative, making bare recital radiant, with all the fire of enthusiasm celebrating with mental and physical rejoicings, the dry record alone.

One of the marked features of this year is to be a full historical record of each town, city and county of the Union, embracing the geographical, municipal and personal history of each; of course more prominently relating of its earlier history, its marked and distinguished men and women—its pre-eminence or prominence in any direction of art, science, intellectual advantages or natural specialty; all these locally preserved in appropriate depositories, are to be duplicated and gathered in one mass at the seat of the general government to be an illuminated column upon which will be inscribed, “the one hundredth mile of our nation’s progress in the race of peoples toward the ultimate goal of humanity.”

The duty of performing our portion of that work has also been imposed upon me, but with the consent and approbation of your Committee, I have deemed best to postpone to another period the historical recital contemplated, and you must be content with my wearying you with an oration rather than history on the present occasion.

I am impressed with the belief that it would be better to treat the subject before us very briefly, but also in a manner different from the common acceptation of the necessities of a Fourth day of July celebration. I would not have us to lack in all or any of the essential demonstrations of a joyful acknowledgment of its great significance, and a ringing acceptation of its glorious results, but let us endeavor by a calm and conscientious consideration of our government and ourselves to learn more and better what there is for us to do, to preserve and keep alive all the benefits and advantages we have derived from the past, transmitting those great blessing undiminished to our immediate successors, aye, not alone to them but also how best we may by precept and example, pave the way to an indefinite prolongation and increased enjoyment, to the latest time of the legitimate results of the solved problem of our national declaration.

We are one hundred years old to-day; true that the mental strife of contention against and antagonism to aggression commenced earlier, true that organized and bloody opposition, antedated this day—April 19, 1775, and Lexington physically declared as July 4th, 1776, politically decreed the independence and freedom of America.

I repeat, we as a distinct people and nation are one hundred years old to-day, we have only to recollect for a moment to find however that while we are jubilant and rejoicing, that our eyes behold this day, yet in the light of the history of the nations of the world, our nation is an infant brought up in a school of our own, and setting forth to find our way among the nations of the earth in a new and untried pathway ; the peculiar and particular form of government which we enjoy, is in every essential particular now on trial for the first time; it is true, that theoretical republicanism, attempts at freedom have existed, but never in all human history has there been any other government so completely the government of the whole people such as ours.

Kingdoms, principalities and powers enduring for centuries have risen, flourished and fallen into decay ; governments to-day powerful and great in territorial extent, in wealth and physical power, have their record of birth in the “Dark Ages”—but we with a breadth of country surpassed by none—with a population in numbers exceeded by few, with an intellectual wealth as diffused and distributed among the masses enjoyed by no other people—with a physical power fearing no foe—we are but of yesterday.

The vivid memories of many still active and alive to the work of the day, reach back almost to the very beginning of our Republic, and here and there on our soil, men and women yet linger whose infant eyes opened to life ere the dawn of our nation’s morning; we depend not as others on tradition, on the lays of minstrels or the sayings of the wise men, to rescue from the shadowy and dim past, our country’s history—it is but of a day, and the scenes in cabinet, council and camp, are as familiar to all as household words.

Should we not then pause here and ask ourselves the significant question, why our fathers were successful in the establishment, and we so far fortunate in the present stability of the government of the people by the people, while a long list of futile attempts and terrible failures mark every spot wherever else the experiment has been tried; we have to-day among the kingdoms of the earth so-called republics, but we know they are so only in name—they lack the essential engredient of equality to all men before the law—their masses want an intelligent appreciation of their rights and duties—subject to popular frenzy or ambitious personal design, the republics of the past and (I am afraid) most of the present have no elements of either right, justice, or endurance.

No ignorant, no indolent, no irreligious people can ever be permanently a free people, and I hold that the foundations of our nation were laid wide and deep, by intelligence, industry and religion, and upon the adherence to and practice of those great cardinal virtues by our people depend wholly the stability and perpetuity of our government.

I do not wish to be understood when speaking of the intelligence, as meaning the mere learning of the school, nor that so far as such education is concerned, all should have the highest attainable—what I mean is, a practical and thorough knowledge of all necessary to make man and women useful—not useless—good citizens, understanding and practicing all the duties incumbent upon them for their own good and as parts of families, communities and States—above all else I would have every American citizen well grounded in a comprehensive knowledge of the theory, principles and by an honest, virtuous and continuous exercise of his knowledge and his duty as one of the government as well as one of the governed, so help to form, mould and cast public opinion—for upon public opinion alone the stability and efficacy of our people, stolidity, strength and endurance to our nation may be enjoyed and perpetuated.

Indolence engenders vice, disease, poverty, death—labor promotes virtue, health, wealth and long life—what is true of the individual holds good applied to the nation—show me a lazy, indolent, shiftless race, and I will show a nation of slaves; if not so practically, yet mentally slaves to vice and strangers to virtue.

Our fathers by hardy toil, by unwearied thought, calculation and invention, wrung from the wilderness the bright land you gaze on to-day—its great, almost miraculous advancement has boen owing to the combined action of intelligence and physical labor, but that labor, whether of the body or the mind has been persistent and unceasing.

The extent of our territory is greater by far than the whole continent of Europe, but our widely scattered population scarcely measures a tithe of its teeming multitudes; natnre while piling up our chains of mountains towards the sky, scooping out the habitations of our inland oceans, and scouring wide and deep throughout our land, our magnificent net-work of water highways, has planted everywhere for the use and enjoyment of educated as well as directed industry in no scanty store, the natural mineral riches of every clime and people, every known vegetable production is either indegenous, or owing to the variety of climate and soil under our control, can be transplanted and made to grow in sufficient abundance to feed the necessities and supply the luxuries of the world.

In this land of ours, with such a present inheritance and future prospect we are not only blessed above all other people, but we have evidently been chosen by an overruling Providence to do the great and final work for man’s elevation to and permanent enjoyment of the highest civilization to which human nature can attain, and it behooves us to shape our action and direct our energies towards the earliest realization and not the retardation of the completion of this evident design.

Independent of and radically separated from all other nations in our governmental policy, seeking no entangling alliance with powers, but opening wide our gates to all people who desire assimilation with us and enjoyment of our privileges,— I bold that we should be, as far as possible,—physically as well as politically,—independent of and separate from all other people, until at least the common right of a common humanity to equality of privilege and position, is universally acknowledged and accorded.

Would we keep our inheritance untarnished? Would we add to its worth the wealth of experience and invention? In this land of ours, where labor ennobles, docs not degrade, where the changes of worldly position depend upon individual action and are as variable as the waves of the restless sea—where the legitimate tendency of labor is to elevate and enlighten, and not to depress and keep down, let us and our children continue to labor to the end, that the blessings following its wise application will endure to the good of ourselves and our country.

Glance for a moment at one of the results of our comparative poverty coupled with our intelligence and willingness to labor —in all countries but ours labor ignorant is impoverished and helpless with us labor educated is well paid and commanding. Other countries through the ignorance of labor are comparatively non-inventive—we by the intelligence and independence of labor are incited to invention, and our record in the field of useful inventions is a prouder one than the annals of all other nations combined can show—it is the outgrowth of our independence of both political and physical need—cherish and foster labor, for it is a precious jewel in the diadem of our people’s sovereignty.

The body perishes—the soul is immortal. In discussing my third proposition—the need of religion in a community for the maintenance of perpetuation of republican institutions, I must be understood as firmly and conscientiously believing that a morality founded upon the belief in a future and higher life of the soul, to be more or less moulded by and dependent upon virtuous action in the body, is a necessary ingredient in the fitness for and possibility of man’s enjoyment of a free government.

I can not conceive what motive, beyond the sensuous enjoyment of the passing hour, with no thought for that higher and better life on earth, ennobling the individual and benefiting his kind, can ever inspire to virtuous deeds or heroic action the man or woman who believes death is an eternal sleep—the beauty and simplicity of our Constitution, which with proper regulations as to the rights of all, leaves to the conscience and judgment of each the matter of religious belief and observance, is one of the grandest and most noble precepts of its text and character—but with no proscription in its requirements, with no sectarian bias in its action, public opinion has so far demanded and had in our legislative halls, in our State and National gatherings upon all great public occasions, the recognition of the need of the countenance and support of an overruling Providence—sad for us, for our children, for our beloved country, will that day be when that “altar to an unknown God,” erected in pagan Athens, shall be overthrown in Christian America.

More than two hundred years ago on the banks of our beautiful lake Onondaga, the first banner of civilization was unfurled to the breeze—it was the banner of the Cross, and I pray that so long as the stars and stripes of our country shall wave over us as a nation, the hearts of our people may ding to the emblems of an immortal life.

I would not mar the pleasure or dampen the joy of this happy hour by any unkind allusion to the more immediate past, but it would seem proper while we are celebrating the birth, we should rejoice also over the preservation of our Union. Our recent internecine strife was a legitimate result of a want of the practical application of the written theory of our Declaration of Independence—in that instrument human rights were made as broad as humanity itself, and no clime, race, color or condition of men were excluded from the broad and sweeping declaration ” All men are created equal.” It was the practical departure from the annunciation of a political axiom which required our return to the allegiance due our creed, through the carnage and waste of civil war—that strife is over—the victory of principle over selfishness, though bloody, is won, and the nation rejoices through its wide extent at the solution is favor of freedom and right, but, like all wars, it has left wounds open, dangerous, unhealed— not, I trust the wounds of embittered and lasting hate between the contending masses, for God in his infinite mercy grant that this anniversary may bind Maine to Georgia.link Virginia with California, not alone with bands of iron, but with bonds of brotherly love and loyal submission to the rights of humanity individualized as well as compacted,and that long before another hundred or even any years shall have passed in oblivion, shall be buried all recolleotion of the struggle to maintain and preserve our Union, save the sweet and undying memory of brave deeds and heroic endurance, and the proud recollection, dear alike to sunny South and the warm-hearted North—our country is undivided and indivisible.

But we are suffering the wounds always inflicted by ruthless war—a lower scale of both public and private morality—an irksome feeling at lawful constraint—a distaste for honest labor —a reckless extravagance in living—a want of recognition of moral responsibility, not alone in the administration of public affairs, but in the transactions of ordinary business life, and in social relations of neighbors and families.

I warn you, my countrymen, that we must return to the primitive virtues of our fathers—education, labor, religion, must again take the places of greed, speculation, corruption, indolence and vice? We may talk of the corruption of our chosen rulers—we may stand at th6 street corners, and publicly proclaim the venality and crime in high places; this availeth not, what we must first do is—” Physician heal thyself,” “Remove the beam from thine own eye ere you cast out the mote from your brother.” “Purify the fountain that the stream may be pure.” Under the theory and practice our system of government, when administered with the spirit and intent of its founders, our rulers are the people’s servants, and if the people are indifferent and corrupt, so likewise will be their rulers—if the constituency is active and honest, the government will reflect it .

A desire by the voter to profit pecuniarly and socially by the prostitution of political principles to personal ends; the indiscriminate trade by all classes in the enactments of municipality, State and nation, engendered by base cupidity either pecuniary or personal—above and beyond all the utter neglect by the enlightened, educated and wealthy of their sacred miner as well as higher political duties—all combine not only to make our politics disreputable—but to demoralize and will finally destroy our government unless we speedily return more nearly to the dimple habits, rigid morality, and conscientious respect to all political duty which characterized our fathers.

I have thus very briefly discussed our position and our duty on this our hundredth anniversary—I have not considered it wise or profitable to rehearse the familiar story of our struggle for and success in the achievement of a national existence. I have not in studied words painted the rapid strides in our progress as a people. You know it all, and memory would not be quickened nor patriotism intensified by any recital of mine.

But I deem it appropriate, before I shall have concluded the discharge of the duty imposed upon me, to address more particularly the people of my city and my native county.

On the 4th of July, 1776, our county was the abode of the hostile savages, an unbroken wilderness, within whose borders no white man had found a home—it remained so until four years after our revolutionary struggle, when the first white settler, Ephraim Webster, sojourned with the Indian, and following in his path others slowly settled within our present borders—while true that no hostile army has ever invaded our soil—no hearths desolated—no roof-tree obliterated—no historic battle-field marked or distinguished our territorial limits, yet still it is sacred ground.

As early as 1792, a grateful State, reserving a small portion of the land adjoining and surrounding our celebrated salt springs, dedicated and allotted the remainder to the surviving soldiers of its contingent in the armies of the Revolution; many of those war-worn veterans with their surviving households found in long, wearisome and dangerous journey their way highther and entered upon the lands alike the recognition of and reward for their services, and the records of not a few of the towns of our county, show to-day among their worthiest citizens, the honored names of their descendants.

“Beating their swords into plough shares—their spears into pruning hooks,” they attacked with the same unyielding courage, determination and endurance of labor, toil and privation, which had marked their struggle for liberty, the native ruggedness of our unbroken soil—the lonely cabin of logs their dwelling—the biased but tangled wood path their highway, they battled with forest-crowned hill and wooden glen, until peaceful pasture and yielding grain-field displaced the lair of the wild beast and the hunting grounds of the wilder savage.

We cannot now linger to detail the progress of each passing year, to name the conspicuous actor in each scene, but we can for a moment contrast the extremes of 1776 and 1876, look at the pictures before us—1776 the wigwam of the savage and his trackless path in the unbroken forest—1876, six score thousand human souls basking in the sunshine of a free civilization enjoying all the social, intellectual and political advantages ever yet allotted to humanity.

Compared with the huts of our fathers—our habitations are palaces—they dot every hill top, they nestle in every valley— they stand in the seried ranks in our beautiful and growing city, and cluster together around the school and the church, in all our smiling and thriving villages—our thrifty husbandmen look upon countless herds of lowing cattle—on seas of waving grain —on graneries bursting with the rich and bounteous yield of their fertile acres; our merchants in their stately marts of commerce gather from the ends of the earth, the produce of every soil—the handiwork of savage and civilized—all creations of nature and art to satisfy the wants or gratify the tastes of our people—the unceasing hum of the manufacturers’ wheel, the continuous blow of the sturdy artisan and stalwart laborer chase solitude from all our borders—our water highways link us with the ocean lakes of our own West, and give us peaceful entrance to that great sea which rolls between us and the land of our father’s fathers—highways of iron rib our country North, West, South, and East—broad avenues run by the door of the humblest, and commerce with its white wings of peace, has blotted out forever the warpath of the savage and the tree-marked way of the hardy pioneer. Religion dwells in more than an hundred temples of beauty dedicated to the service of the living God. Education from the lordly towers of the princely university to the more humble school-house at the cross roads, boasts its many habitations. We are the central county of the Empire State, which ranks first in wealth, first in population, first in representation among her sister States of our Union. Of sixty, our county is seventh in population and wealth, and in the fifth rank in State representation.

The pioneers of our country and their sons have been distinguished on every stage of life in all the years of our history —side by side with them, many who have here sought a new home, a new country, have over and again reflected honor and glory on the home of their adoption. Distinction in the pulpit at the bar, in the forum, on battle field, in the broad field of human endeavor—wherever honor, distinction, wealth and place were to be gained—high rank, deserved places of merit and worth have been won by many whose earliest training for usefulness and busy life, was by the fireside of their homes among the beautiful hills and smiling valleys of our beloved Onondaga.

I cannot speak to-day of battle scenes or individuals, but we know that on many a well stricken field, in many a still and silent city of the dead, lie to-day the mortal remains of hundreds of Onondaga’s bravest sons, who battling for the right, from Bull Run to Appomattox, left their record of bravery and patriotism in all the conflicts of the late struggle for national existence. We rejoice in the life and presence to-day of the brave survivors of that terrible conflict. From the Generals with title won on the field, to the private soldier whose unflinching valor and great endurance fought and won the contest for our second independence—all have reflected honor upon and won undying glory for the country of their nativity and adoption.

Children of the soil—adopted sons and daughters of old Onondaga—is this noble heritage of our fathers, this free and equal government given us to enjoy by the brave, good and wise men of an hundred years ago worth preserving another hundred years? No human being I now address will witness the scene at that celebration; the voice of him who now addresses you will be silent in the grave, the beating hearts and active limbs of this vast multitude will have gone to their last quiet mortal sleep forever. The men of the revolution gave us and our children this day at the cost of suffering and tears, wounds and death. Where are they? The lasb surviving warrior and statesman who stood on the battlements of freedom’s citadel and conquered for us the banded hordes of tyranny and oppression, has gone to join the hosts of heaven’s freemen in another and a better world. Can we not take their finished work—keep and preserve it untarnished, unbroken, beautiful enlarged, and more glorious and endearing, for our children’s children? Though dead in the body yet living in the spirit, we may then hear, mingling with the rejoicings of 1976, and blessings and praise to our names as well as to the deeds of our fathers, in that we have made of the talent committed to our charge other talents of honor, glory and prosperity for our country.

Let us to this end from this day practice economy, industry —cultivate intelligence, make virtue the rule and guide of our private and public life.

Triumphant armies inscribe their banners with the names of their victorious fields of battle. May we give as our legacy to the next great anniversary of our country’s birth, the stars of our nation’s banner undimmed—its stripes untarnished, rightfully inscribing thereon as our faith kept pure and unsullied— our motto, won by our acts—Religion, Education, Free Labor, the only sure foundation on which to build, for perpetuity, Republican Institutions.

See also: THE GENIUS OF AMERICA by Hon. Dr. Felix R. Brunot July 4, 1876
AMERICAN FREE INSTITUTIONS; THE JOY AND GLORY OF MANKIND by Dr. J. Sellman 1876
THE POWER OF HISTORY by Horatio Seymour (1810–1886)
AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP! by Colonel Henry A. Gildersleve July 4th 1876 NYC
THE HAND OF GOD IN AMERICAN HISTORY by Rev Morgan Dix July 4th 1876 NYC
OUR NOBLE HERITAGE by Hon. George W. Curtis (1824 –1892)
Political Evils and the Remedy for them by Noah Webster 1834
Wide Spread And Growing Corruption In The Public Service Of The States And Nation
THE COST OF POPULAR LIBERTY by Brooks Adams July 4th 1876
The Practical Advance Of Human Freedom Under The Trumpet Call Made In 1776 by Charles F Adams
THE SOURCE AND SECURITY OF AMERICAN FREEDOM AND PROGRESS by Courtlandt Parker 1876
True American Patriotism Defined by Hon. Curtis Guild and H. F. Kinnerney 1876
The Consequence of Bad Legal Precedent in American Legislation

The Consequence of Bad Legal Precedent in American Legislation

PrecedentKeep in mind every law the Congress and the President of the United States pass, sets what is called “Precedent“. Which in common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a principle or rule i.e. Law established in a previous legal case that is either binding on or persuasive for a court or other tribunal when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

“The better the constitution of a State is, the more do public affairs encroach on private in the minds of the citizens. Private affairs are even of much less importance, because the aggregate of the common happiness furnishes a greater proportion of that of each individual, so that there is less for him to seek in particular cares. In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies: under a bad government no one cares to stir a step to get to them, because no one is interested in what happens there, because it is foreseen that the general will will not prevail, and lastly because domestic cares are all-absorbing. Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones bring about worse. As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State What does it matter to me? the State may be given up for lost.

The lukewarmness of patriotism, the activity of private interest, the vastness of States, conquest and the abuse of government suggested the method of having deputies or representatives of the people in the national assemblies. These are what, in some countries, men have presumed to call the Third Estate. Thus the individual interest of two orders is put first and second; the public interest occupies only the third place.” by Jean-Jacques Rousseau “The Social Contract” 1762

Stare Decisis: [Latin, Let the decision stand.] The policy of courts to abide by or adhere to principles established by decisions in earlier cases.

In the United States and England, the Common Law has traditionally adhered to the precedents of earlier cases as sources of law. This principle, known as stare decisis, distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction.

For stare decisis to be effective, each jurisdiction must have one highest court to declare what the law is in a precedent-setting case. The U.S. Supreme Court and the state supreme courts serve as precedential bodies, resolving conflicting interpretations of law or dealing with issues of first impression. Whatever these courts decide becomes judicial precedent.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “precedent” as a “rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases.

When you let the government pass laws that allow them to confiscate peoples private property without the benefit of a trial, simply by being charged with a crime.

Or, When you let the government pass laws that allow them to confiscate peoples private property without their consent, as in Eminent Domain abuse.

When you let government confiscate all the gold bullion and pass legislation to outlaw the possession of it in private hands, or sign executive orders to accomplish the same, as liberal hero Franklin D. Roosevelt did in 1933.

When you let the government inter thousands of Americans simply because of the race of their ancestors as FDR did in WWII.

When you let the government pass laws to require you to wear seat belts in your personal vehicles.

When you let government pass laws that force American’s to buy auto insurance, you open the door to them forcing you to buy health insurance, i.e., Obamacare.

When you let government pass laws to ban smoking in various areas.

These ALL set “Precedent” to further “Infringe” on your rights, liberties and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution!

Example: The confiscation of gold set the precedent for the government to confiscate your IRA’s and/or 401(k) as the democrats have suggested doing.

Example: The internment of American’s of Japanese ancestry set the precedent for the government internment of others without benefit of legal charges, or trial. The FEMA camps come to mind that we have all heard about.

Example: The Supreme Court had the Legal Precedent to Strike Down the Onerous Obama Health Care Bill. It chose not to, thereby setting another precedent for the government to have even more control over our lives, liberties, freedoms and happiness.

Just as the IRS has shown, the potential for abuse should be taken into consideration and shown high regard when Congress is contemplating what legislation they vote for. The NSA data mining and Obamacare are ripe for abuse. As a matter of record the Tea Party Patriots were against the Patriot Act and the immigration debate, Obamacare, the Patriot Act, and countless other un-constitutional laws passed by our government, especially when the majority of the American people are saying “NO”, the disregard and lack of deference to the people by our government shows the imperative need for We The People to hold our government accountable.

I never could think that a bad Precedent was a good Argument for a bad Proceeding: No Precedent ought to be blindly followed; it ought to be examined by the Rules of Law and of Reason, and if it be found to be against either, a contrary Precedent cannot be made too soon.

“Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny. In such a country as this, they are of all bad things the worst, worse by far than any where else; and they derive a particular malignity even from the wisdom and soundness of the rest of our institutions. For very obvious reasons you cannot trust the Crown with a dispensing power over any of your laws” – Edmund Burke Speech previous to the Election at Bristol.

Of all Tyranny, that Tyranny is the worst, which has the Formalities of Law for its Support. Every other Tyranny is the Effect of misguided and ungoverned Passions: this is the Result of Deliberation, and even Reason is prostituted to its Purposes. The former may find Motives for its Excuse: the latter is out of the Reach of Absolution. Lawless Tyranny is confessedly lawless. Legal Tyranny adds Treachery to Tyranny: for it acts in Disguise, and deceives with the Appearance of Truth. But this Argument applies to the superior Baseness of this Tyranny only. The Absurdity of it is almost too preposterous to mention. Tyranny clothed in the Forms of the Constitution! How irreconcilable the Terms with the Ideas! And how little able to stand the Test of Examination! -Edmund Burke excerpt from letter to the sheriffs of Bristol

It is the nature of tyranny and rapacity never to learn moderation from the ill success of first oppressions; on the contrary, all oppressors, all men thinking highly of the methods dictated by their nature, attribute the frustration of their desires to the want of sufficient rigour. Then they redouble the efforts of their impotent cruelty; which producing, as they must ever produce, new disappointments, they grow irritated against the objects of their rapacity; and then rage, fury, and malice (implacable because unprovoked) recruiting and reinforcing their avarice, their vices are no longer human. From cruel men they are transformed into savage beasts, with no other vestiges of reason left but what serves to furnish the inventions and refinements of ferocious subtlety for purposes, of which beasts are incapable, and at which fiends would blush. – Edmund Burke Speech in the Impeachment of Warren Hastings, Esq.

The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual’s private rights. So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.” – William Blackstone

“Self-defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated and attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defense. Free men have arms; slaves do not.” – William Blackstone

If Congress and the President do what they do without precedent, if it appear their duty, it argues the more wisdom, virtue, and magnanimity, that they know themselves able to be a precedent to others. Who perhaps in future ages, if they prove not too degenerate, will look up with honor, and aspire toward these exemplary and matchless deeds of their Ancestors, as to the highest top of their civil glory and emulation. Which heretofore, in the pursuance of fame and foreign dominion, spent itself vain-gloriously abroad; but henceforth may learn a better fortitude, to dare execute highest Justice on them that shall by force of Arms endeavor the oppressing and bereaving of Religion and their liberty at home: that no unbridled Potentate or Tyrant, but to his sorrow for the future, may presume such high and irresponsible license over mankind, to havoc and turn upside-down whole Kingdoms of men, as though they were no more in respect of his perverse will.  Excerpt from The Tenure of Kings and Magistrates: John Milton 1690

Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.”- Thomas Paine

“If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” – Samuel Adams

See also:
Joseph Baldwin: Address 1892, to National Teachers Association in New York
PATRIOT SONS OF PATRIOT SIRES by Rev. Samuel Francis Smith 1808-1895
THE SOURCE AND SECURITY OF AMERICAN FREEDOM AND PROGRESS by Courtlandt Parker 1876
THE GENIUS OF AMERICA by Hon. Dr. Felix R. Brunot July 4, 1876
A PRAYER FOR THE NATION by Rev. William Bacon Stevens July 4, 1876
The Wisdom of Founder John Adams Part 1: Novanglus Papers
True American Patriotism Defined by Hon. Curtis Guild and H. F. Kinnerney 1876

CENSORSHIP FACEBOOK HEADS UP!! SUGGESTION 4 EVERYONE ON FB!! VERY IMPORTANT!!!!!!!

I am, or was “Proud Hobbit” on Facebook, until Facebook contacted me yesterday i.e. Thurs/Fri. telling me that I wasn’t using my “real name” and that my account was suspended until I provided my real name, and updated my Facebook account using it. The censorship has begun, I would therefore suggest the following. This is the second time I have been censored on Facebook! After I changed the name, because I frequently refresh screen, one of the first times I did this, after they made me change my name. I got a Facebook notification that my account was temporarily unavailable, to try again in a few minutes. I waited, refreshed again, it took me to Run, Sarah, Run! Sarah Palin 2012 which I have listed on page as my employer.  (Facebook now referred to as FB)

If you are on FB do the following!

Open up Wordpad or Notepad, while still on your FB page,,after Wordpad/Notepad opens,,,,,,go to the page that lists your FB friends, i.e. click the link to left side of your FB page that says Friends,,,after your friends page is open,,,,highlight the name of your first friend like you would when you highlight something you wish to copy and paste,,,,after it is highlighted,,,,scroll down the page,,,,,keep scrolling until you reach the end of your lists of friends,,,,,,hold down shift key,,,,click to the right side of last name,,,,,all names should then be highlighted,,,,,hit ctrl + C,,to copy,,,,go to Wordpad/Notepad,,,click in document window so that you can type in the document,,,,,,hit ctrl + V to paste ,,,,,walla!!! you now have a list of all your FB friends,,,,,update frequently using same method,,

I would also suggest you exchange emails or go to each others FB pages and get the email info off each one,,,if you are like me, though,,none of your FB pages contains your main email address,,,therefore you should contact each friend and get their main email address.

I don’t mean web-based email like hotmail,,gmail,,,etc..I mean the email at your Internet service provider,,they can censure you just as easily on the web-based email providers as they can on facebook. I would also suggest that you exchange phone numbers with your most trusted friends, but always be cautious and remain vigilant for trolls and traitors!

Founders on the 2nd Amendment
Friday at 4:30am

After posting this, I now have to enter the security code to post from my blog on Facebook, never had to before!

I also have a friend that used the name “TheObama Hustle” that had his FB page deleted, no warning nothing. They said he was using a celebrity name. He is skip tracer and had been posting things concerning the lies, fraud, etc. that are Obama. You can see his blog and what he is currently doing here http://theobamahustle@wordpress.com/. He has proceeded to press charges against BO for fraud concerning the land, the Obama’s supposedly bought from Tony Resko.

Facebook Alternative Diaspora Launches in Beta

UPDATE: I am slow to anger, but when that anger comes, it is not something that goes away easily, and it only makes me more determined. I am going to keep a track of my Facebook posts to my James Davis (Proud Hobbit) wall, for you to follow and for my own purposes, records, etc.

Where it started was actually with my first facebook account, FamilyTrees Genealogy. During the debt debate, I would get on Speaker John Boehners FB page. Some leftist trolls got on his page, they were making all kinds of comments attacking him, spreading lies, disinformation, and generally tying up the comments with their banter back and forth, dwarfing all the legitimate comments, from concerned citizens. I watched them do this for two days until I got tired of it. I then started posting links to facts on the net, responding to their comments and arguments. I posted quotes from their supposed hero Thomas Jefferson that refuted, or put into context quotes they were using from him. They didn’t like that, so they started using one of the another Founder,, and put after his name “non-slave owner” I then started using the same founder and put same “non-slave owner” like they did. They then went to Reagan, I refused to argue with them, I just kept posting facts with links to those facts. They then went to Jesus, I knew more than they did on that subject too. They then started calling me names, again I did not stoop to their level, I just kept posting facts. They could not defeat me, so they told FB I was spamming so that FB blocked me from posting publicly. I then got contacted by a friend to start another FB account. Now it has just gone on from there. Follow timeline of my FB page posts to see what happened.

NOTE: **** indicates a separate the set of comments as I and other posted them.

Update; took out comments  to cut down on size, and to not bore people, kept links to FB censorship articles. If you want me to put comments back, please do not hesitate to ask me to.

AUG. 25 2011 UPDATE!! I was adding the following link and others like it to my FB wall, everyone I had to enter the FB Censorship code,,

http://twitpic.com/6b5pfa

I was only able to add 13 of them before I got this message. Keep in mind we are talking my Facebook Wall and I can GUARANTEE NONE of my Friends complained

I added this to the post I put on my wall with the pic below

“OKAY FACEBOOK CENSORS!! THIS IS MY WALL!!! MY FRIENDS DO NOT CARE WHAT I POST TO MY WALL!!! SO I AM GETTING THIS ONLY BECAUSE THE FACEBOOK CENSORS ARE MONITORING MY WALL!! WHY DO YOU FIT SO APPROPRIATELY THE SECOND WORD AS SO MANY TIMES YOU DO WHEN I HAVE TO ENTER YOUR CENSORSHIP CODES, WHICH I RECEIVED WHEN POSTING OUR FALLEN WARRIORS BELOW THIS POST!!!!”

Facebook BETRAYAL of OUR FALLEN WARRIORS

Notice how the second word fits so well the thing they are censoring that I am posting,,,this is a common occurrence!

More instances of Facebook Censorship

Adding links and comments in order of Facebook post,

Facebook Apologizes for Deleting Arizona Governor’s Post

1 hours ago · Like · · Share

Political and religious censorship by Facebook

1 hours ago · Like · · Share

Facebook Censorship: Is Big Brother Watching You? – SocialTimes.com

Proof That Facebook is Censoring You | Ari Herzog

Atlas Shrugs: FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP

Facebook Criticized For Censorship

Facebook celebrates royal wedding by nuking 50 protest groups – Boing Boing

Roger Ebert’s the Latest Victim of Facebook’s Censorship Problem

I’m Tired Of Facebook Censorship Facebook Group about Facebook Censorship

AGAINST FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP and “REPORT” BUTTON Another Facebook Group

Has Facebook Censorship On Riots Already Begun? – WideShut: Alternative News

Facebook censored my posted item

Facebook Censorship, When Social Networks Block the Sharing of Links (or Worse) | Internet Marketing

The downside of Facebook as a public space: Censorship — Tech News and Analysis

Will Facebook Censor for a Shot at the Chinese Market? – Global Spin – TIME.com WHAT FACEBOOK INTEGRITY!!!!!!

Libertarian Peacenik: Fight Facebook Censorship in China

Today’s Lesson: Make Facebook Angry, And They’ll Censor You Into Oblivion

Open Questions Remain in Facebook Censorship flap

UPDATE: I also cannot post articles from my blog to FB chat/messages now, FB will not allow it. I guess they can’t make you use their security censorship codes for those.

Facebook Censoring Some Alternative News Sites While Allowing Hackers To Attack Others :

NOTE: It is now 4:2o AM on Sunday morning Aug 21, 2011

Nikki Sixx Vs Facebook Censorship

6 minutes ago · Like · · Share

Facebook Censorship

NOTE: Got interrupted It is now 4:50 AM on Sunday morning Aug 21, 2011

Swaziland Commentary: SWAZI FACEBOOK CENSORSHIP THREAT

about a minute ago · Like · · Share

Facebook censorship discussions 4:59 AM

Jan Brewer: Facebook ‘Censored’ Post Critical of Obama Immigration Policy | NewsBusters.org

Facebook Censorship or not? (They removed our Fan page again)

It is 5:07 Just tried sending in FB chat link to my blog post The Rise and Fall of my big brother while it let me post this one to chat they made me enter security code, again they will not let me post FB censorship post to chat.

5:15AM Just posted this again to my FB wall to see if I still could, had to enter security code again. I do not want to go to sleep because when I get off and get back on is when they suspend my account. I want to be awake and documenting it if and when they do it again.

Facebook Censorship, Cellphones Blocked in America  5:27 AM

7:40  AM,  Just logged out of my James Davis aka Proud Hobbit FB account and logged back in. Looks like they may just be monitoring me for now, instead of deleting me.It is usually when I go offline and come back on that I get their messages and alerts.

Stay tuned I will update info as I add it to Facebook page and then here!

Your hobbit friend and Patriot brother in arms,,,

THANK YOU GOD 4 YOUR BLESSINGS ON AMERICA!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! AND MAY FREEDOM REIGN!!!

nra_armd

What The Founding Fathers Said About the 2nd Amendment (Original Intent)

Just a note, when the Bill of Rights were written and the 2nd amendment was written, the colonists, i.e. the people, were armed with the very same arms i.e. cannons and muskets, that were available to the government military, i.e. British Tories

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” -Patrick Henry

“No man who knows aught, can be so stupid to deny that all men naturally were born free.” ~ John Milton

“When complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bound of civil liberty attained that wise men look for.” ~ John Milton

Self-defense is justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken away by the laws of society. And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated and attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defense. Free men have arms; slaves do not.” – William Blackstone

No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.” – William Blackstone

The public good is in nothing more essentially interested, than in the protection of every individual’s private rights. So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property, that it will not authorize the least violation of it; no, not even for the general good of the whole community.” – William Blackstone

The Statists, Marxist, Leftist, Progressives, Socialist, i.e. those elements of the country that wish the federal/central government to control everything, would have you believe that the second amendment pertains simply to the military. The Democrats have made this argument for years. Clearly they lie and/or are wrong as you will see as you educate yourself here on exactly what the Founder’s and others said on the subject at the time of the founding.

Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent; selected from the rest of mankind their minds are early poisoned by importance; and the world they act in differs so materially from the world at large, that they have but little opportunity of knowing its true interests, and when they succeed to the government are frequently the most ignorant and unfit of any throughout the dominions.”- Thomas Paine

“If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” – Samuel Adams

“The law of self-preservation overrules the laws of obligation to others.” ~ Thomas Jefferson 1793

The 2nd Amendment ensures the 1st Amendment.

The Second Amendment states:
“A  well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

definitions of key words:

Right: noun; 1. something to which one has a just claim, 2. the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled, 3. something that one may properly claim as due, 4. the cause of truth or justice

People: plural; any one, of a number of human beings making up a group or assembly or linked by a common interest.

People is plural for person, people therefore according to the Founder’s original intent, meant every single citizen that make up the people of the United States of America.

Keep: verb; 1. to retain in one’s possession or power, 2. to continue to maintain, 3. to cause to remain in a given place, situation, or condition, 4. to preserve in an unspoiled condition.

Bear: verb: 1. to be equipped or furnished with, 2.to carry or possess

Shall: verb: 1. used to express a command or exhortation, 2. used in laws, regulations, or directives to express what is mandatory

Not: adverb: 1. never, 2. not ever, 3. at no time, 4. not in any degree, 5. not under any condition

Be: verb: 1. to have, maintain, or occupy a place, situation, or position; 2. to remain unmolested, undisturbed, or uninterrupted

Infringed: Infringe; verb: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another, Encroach; 1. to enter by gradual steps or by stealth into the possessions or rights of another, 2. to advance beyond the usual or proper limits

See the following links also: Political Evils and the Remedy for them by Noah Webster 1834,
Constitution of the United States and it’s Governmental Operations (In Plain English so even lawyers and politicians can understand) ,
POLITICAL CONSTITUTIONS by Johannes Von Muller (1832),
Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
Barack Obama’s 10 Point Plan to “Change” The Second Amendment

If the government believes they should provide everyone with healthcare because it is a “Right”, why is it they do not provide us all with guns, because that has been a true “Right” to “Keep and Bear” for much longer than healthcare!

Founder’s quotes on 2nd amendment

”The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” (George Washington)

“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” (George Washington)

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and  pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference  – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788)

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322)

“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution)

“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress)

What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that [the] people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. (Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, Paris; 1787 see bottom of post for full letter)

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who do not.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“It is the duty of a Patriot to protect his country from its government” (Thomas Paine)

“If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” (Samuel Adams)

“On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” (Thomas Jefferson, letter to William S. Smith, 1787)

Thomas Jefferson In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”

“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” (Encyclopedia of Thomas Jefferson)

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”, Proposal for a Virginia Constitution, (Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people; it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government.” (Patrick Henry )

“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” (Patrick Henry, Elliot Debates)

“The people have a right to keep and bear arms.” and “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, Elliot Debates)

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.  (Thomas Paine)

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual  as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right  to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

“The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” (Sir George Tucker, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia, in I Blackstone Commentaries)

“The  right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well  regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to  arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”  (James Madison,  I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

“As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia.” (James Madison, notes of debates in the 1787 Federal Convention)

Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. […] To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.
(Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on “militia” in the 2nd Amendment writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic)

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
(Richard Henry Lee writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.)

“Whenever, therefore, the profession of arms becomes a distinct order in the state….the end of the social compact is defeated… No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state…Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.” (Richard Henry Lee)

“What, Sir, is the use of a militia?  It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty….Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second  Amendment  [ I Annals of Congress at 750 August17, 1789])

“…if raised, whether they could subdue a Nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?” (Delegate Sedgwick, during the Massachusetts Convention, rhetorically asking if an oppressive standing army could prevail, Jonathan Elliot, ed., Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Vol.2 at 97 (2d ed., 1888))

“…to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”  (George Mason)

“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed – unlike the  citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

“the ultimate authority … resides in the people alone,” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper #46.)

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost  every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense,  raised in the United States” (Noah Webster in An Examination  into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787, a pamphlet aimed at swaying Pennsylvania toward ratification,  in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at 56(New York, 1888))

“…but  if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form  an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties  of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights…”  (Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29.)

“Besides  the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess  over the people of almost every other nation. . .Notwithstanding the military  establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the  people with arms.” (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist  Paper No. 46.)

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear  their private arms.”  (Tench Coxe in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution’ under the Pseudonym A  Pennsylvanian’ in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

“The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American…the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. (Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788)

“The  prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any  rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829)

“Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts: spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

“What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” (Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts:, I Annals of Congress at 750 August 17, 1789)

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”  (George Mason,)

“The  Constitution shall never be construed….to prevent the people of  the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms” (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87)

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use  them.” (Richard  Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

“The great object is that every man be armed” and “everyone who is able may have a gun.” (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,…taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271,  275 2d ed.  Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386)

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.” (Zachariah Johnson, Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3)

“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?  Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?” (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”  (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8)

“That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience;  or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from  keeping their own arms…” (Samuel Adams,  Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce  & Hale,  eds.,  Boston, 1850))

“And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not  warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of  resistance? Let them take arms….The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants” (Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787.  Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy 20, S. Padover ed.,1939)

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined”  (Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836)

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”  –(Thomas Jefferson)

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … From the hour the Pilgrims landed, to the present day, events, occurrences, and tendencies prove that to insure peace, security and happiness, the rifle and  pistol are equally indispensable . . . The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference  – they deserve a place of honor with all that is good” (George Washington)

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, [Writings of Thomas Paine])

“A strong body makes the mind strong.  As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.(Thomas  Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318 [Foley,  Ed.,  reissued 1967])

“The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and  preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance  would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid  mischief  would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them…” (Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 [1894])

(The  American Colonies were) “all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the  least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. (European countries should not) be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defense of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them.” [George Mason, “Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company” in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970)]

“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes.  But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the  legions which surround it.” (James Madison, “Federalist No. 46”)

“Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that ‘if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.’ It is a very serious consideration that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.” (Samuel Adams speech, 1771)

“These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated.”  (Thomas Paine)

“We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our own Country’s Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions — The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny mediated against them.” (George Washington, General Orders, July 2, 1776.)

Court rulings on the subject

“To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.” [Wilson vs. State, 33  Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. (1878)]

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing  of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are  exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.” [Bliss  vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)] ”

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right.” [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga (1 Kel.)  (1846)]

“The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The  exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution  cannot  be made subject to the will of the sheriff.” [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. (1922)]

“The  maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free  people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions.”[State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. (1921)]

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or  the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the “high powers” delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.’ A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” [Cockrum vs. State, 24 Tex.394, at (1859)]

Other quotes on the subject of bearing arms from American history

“The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…. It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.” (Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789)

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America”  (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

“…the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to  keep and bear their private arms” (from article in the Philadelphia  Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2,)

“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.” (Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice and U.S. House Representative from Massachusetts. Commentaries on the  Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833])

“The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military  are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only  the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.” (Edward  Abbey, “The Right to Arms,” Abbey’s Road [New York, 1979])

Quotes from international figures

“Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed  by the fear of an armed people.” (Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697])

“No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people.  The possession  of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.  He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion.” (James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors,  Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775])

“The difficulty here has been to persuade the citizens to keep arms, not  to prevent them from being employed for violent purposes.” (Timothy Dwight,  Travels in New-England)

“To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed…to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless…If the government be  equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the  education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defense of themselves and their country.” (Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and New York [London 1823]

“You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you….There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be  suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)

“You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second.” (Niccolo Machiavelli in “The Prince”)

Thomas Jefferson “Tree of Liberty” quote:

“I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it’s motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.” – Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 178

Other posts that may be of interest:
The Wisdom of Founder John Adams Part 2: Novanglus Papers
The Failure of Marxism and Socialism
The Doctrine of Fascism, Fascism Defined by Benito Mussolini
Christianity and the Founding of the United States
Non-Revisionist Politically Incorrect History of America from the Ancient Authors Part 1
Non-Revisionist Politically Incorrect History of the World With Biblical References Part 1

“Societies exist under three forms sufficiently distinguishable. 1. Without government, as among our Indians. 2. Under governments wherein the will of every one has a just influence, as is the case in England in a slight degree, and in our states in a great one. 3. Under governments of force: as is the case in all other monarchies and in most of the other republics. To have an idea of the curse of existence under these last, they must be seen. It is a government of wolves over sheep. It is a problem, not clear in my mind, that the 1st. condition is not the best. But I believe it to be inconsistent with any great degree of population. The second state has a great deal of good in it. The mass of mankind under that enjoys a precious degree of liberty and happiness. It has it’s evils too: the principal of which is the turbulence to which it is subject. But weigh this against the oppressions of monarchy, and it becomes nothing. Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem (Translation: I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery) Even this evil is productive of good. It prevents the degeneracy of government, and nourishes a general attention to the public affairs. I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government.” (Thomas Jefferson letter to James Madison, Paris, January 30, 1787)

“Many free countries have lost their liberty, and ours may lose hers; but if she shall, be it my proudest plume, not that I was the last to desert, but that I never deserted her.

I know that the great volcano at Washington, aroused and directed by the evil spirit that reigns there, is belching forth the lava of political corruption in a current broad and deep, which is sweeping with frightful velocity over the whole length and breadth of the land, bidding fair to leave unscathed no green spot or living thing; while on its bosom are riding, like demons on the waves of hell, the imps of that evil spirit, and fiendishly taunting all those who dare resist its destroying course with the hopelessness of their effort; and, knowing this, I cannot deny that all may be swept away. Broken by it I, too, may be; bow to it I never will.

The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall not deter me. If ever I feel the soul within me elevate and expand to those dimensions not wholly unworthy of its almighty Architect, it is when I contemplate the cause of my country deserted by all the world beside, and I standing up boldly and alone, and hurling defiance at her victorious oppressors.

Here, without contemplating consequences, before high heaven and in the face of the world, I swear eternal fidelity to the just cause, as I deem it, of the land of my life, my liberty, and my love.

And who that thinks with me will not fearlessly adopt the oath that I take?

Let none falter who thinks he is right, and we may succeed. But if, after all, we shall fail, be it so. We still shall have the proud consolation of saying to our consciences, and to the departed shade of our country’s freedom, that the cause approved of our judgment, and adored of our hearts, in disaster, in chains, in torture, in death, we never faltered in defending.” (From The Entire Writings of Lincoln by Abraham Lincoln)