Constitution Party

Category: Opinion Pieces

  • Civil Disobedience: The American Way

    Civil Disobedience: The American Way

    Karen Murray, State Chairman, Alaska Constitution Party

    “Not to Speak is to Speak. Not to Act is to Act.  To do nothing when a house is burning is to do something — it is to let the house burn. To say nothing when a country is burning is to do something — it is to let the country burn.” 1  

    One of the greatest tragedies of 21st Century America is its lack of education in regard to American history, literature, political philosophy and religious thought. We are drowning in mega-terabytes of information on a daily basis, yet we seem to be more confused and chaotic in our thinking than ever before. More information does not equate to more education. The type of information presented is more important than the amount of information. One of those missing pieces is the lack of knowledge on how to use logic, reasoning, and debate on issues about which we might disagree. As a people, we are becoming increasingly reactionary rather than taking well-thought-out action towards fixing whatever the problem may be. Our conversations often turn into confrontations, bullying, and violence, with no real solutions achieved. When political decisions are made which are in opposition to the founding principles of the Republic, those which violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; when the representatives of the people are only representing themselves or their financial backers, many people feel that there is no way to repair the damage, except through violence.  It’s time to re-educate our people on the art of Civil Disobedience.

     What is Civil Disobedience?

    Civil Disobedience is peaceful action by a citizen or group of citizens against a law, policy or regulation established by a governing authority.

    The first American example of Civil Disobedience was in response to the Quartering Act of 1756. As more British troops arrived in America during the French and Indian War, Parliament decided that the colonies should feed, clothe, house, and provide transportation for them. New York decided that it would not support such a mandate. The state assembly felt that the act of implementing it would send a message to Parliament that they supported the law. Instead, the act of non-compliance sent a stronger message that the colony did not recognize the authority of the state to impose such a mandate. They were later censured for this in one of the Townshend Acts.

    Henry David Thoreau, an American transcendentalist author/philosopher who lived in the 19th century wrote an essay called “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”.  Thoreau was concerned about a lot of government overreach in his day, but specifically slavery and the Mexican American War.  It is an enlightening work, surprising in its application to the situation Americans find themselves in today, and I highly recommend reading it.

    Another source for parts of this article is “Civil Disobedience: A Constitutional Alternative to Justice” by Samuel H.J. Shultz.2

    Rules of Civil Disobedience 

    Rule #1:  There must be an official government law, policy, regulation, etc. in place. 

    Rule #2:  That law, policy, regulation, etc. must be deemed to be Unjust. A good example of the concept of what is Unjust comes from the ancient Brehon Laws of Ireland.  A flax farmer’s field was adjacent to a sheep herder’s pasture.  One day the sheep escaped into the farmer’s field and devoured the flax.  This destroyed the farmer’s income for an entire year, until another crop could be raised.  The farmer sought compensation by bringing his case before the local Brehon (judge).  The Brehon ruled that because the flax had been destroyed, all the sheep must be destroyed.  Case closed.  A young boy about 14 years of age shouted, “This is an Unjust judgement!”  In those times anyone could challenge a case in this manner and of any age, so the boy was asked to prove his statement.  He explained that the flax could grow back the following year, but the sheep would not.  A Just decision would be to simply order that the sheep be sheared, and the fleece given to the farmer to compensate for the loss of his crop.

    Rule #3:  All appeals to common sense and calls to reverse the government act in question have been ignored or punished by public officials. A good example of this is found in very recent events in America.  Mask mandates and vaccine mandates are both examples of unjust government actions, which spawned spontaneous acts of Civil Disobedience by individual citizens across the country.

    Rule #4:  The word “civil” has two meanings when applied to the term Civil Disobedience.  It refers to government authority, but it also applies to peaceful and logical conduct. Although Civil Disobedience has been practiced in various forms throughout history, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950’s and the 1960’s as well as the American Indian Movement of the 1970’s are two examples many of us remember still.  Violence eventually erupted in both these movements and the reasons are varied and complicated.  Yet both began as powerful examples of Civil Disobedience).  Will the future look back upon the battle to re-establish America’s Constitutional Republic as a beacon of light in a dark world?  Only time will tell.

    Consequences

    There are always natural and unnatural consequences for any choice we make. Newton’s Third Law of Motion applies here in more ways than one: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” 

    If you choose to practice Civil Disobedience, you can expect some sort of reaction from those who would be tyrannical.

    There are an endless number of government acts which need to be overcome by exercising this Duty of American citizenship, indeed it can be said to be a Duty of all humans – to defeat tyranny through peaceful and lawful means.

    1. Roger K. Hudnut, 1971; A Sensitive Man and the Christ, page 21.
      ↩︎
    2. Schultz, Samuel H.J. (2019) “Civil Disobedience: A Constitutional Alternative to Injustice,” Mitchell Hamline Law Review: Vol. 45: Iss. 2, Article 9. Available at: https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/mhlr/vol45/iss2/9 ↩︎
    Join Us
    Donate
    Subscribe

  • Battles of Lexington and Concord

    Battles of Lexington and Concord

    For over a decade the city of Boston had been in a political battle with the crown. First they had defied the many tax acts that had been passed against them and other colonies, then Bostonian men had provoked British troops to fire into a crowd which became known as the Boston Massacre, next had come the Boston Tea Party which had seen Bostonians dress as American Indians, seize ships laden with East India Tea, and dump it into the Harbor. After that last event, King George III and Parliament had had enough with Boston. They shut down the harbor, demanded that Boston pay back the dumped tea, and declared Boston to be in a state of rebellion which saw the landing of British troops in the city.

    Joseph Warren, a doctor and member of the secret Sons of Liberty, learned from his network of informants that the British planned on marching to Concord to seize munitions, arms, and cannon that the Sons of Liberty had been gathering there. On the night of April 18th, he dispatched two men to ride to Concord and warn the Sons of Liberty of the coming British troops so they could remove the arms and ammunition from the town.

    Paul Revere and William Dawes snuck out of Boston and waited for the signal that was to come from the Old North Church: one light if the British were to move by land and two if they were to move by sea. When the two lanterns were put up, Revere and Dawes from two separate locations set out post haste for Lexington to warn Samuel Adams and John Hancock to leave for safety. While Revere and Dawes never made it to Concord, Samuel Prescott, whom they shared the British plans with, did.

    On the morning of April 19th, Lt. Col. Francis Smith and his 700 troops arrived in Lexington to find 77 militiamen armed and blocking the British forces path. After ordering the militia to disperse, and them refusing, a shot rang out (no one knows from which side) and the British forces answered with several volleys leaving eight militiamen dead and 9 wounded while only suffering one casualty.

    Smith then proceeded to Concord, where he found very few arms and munitions but turned them anyway. Unfortunately, the fire got out of hand and spread to other homes and buildings lighting the on fire. While the inferno was raging, hundreds of militiamen that had been gathering outside of Concord decided to advance on the British in thinking the town had been put to the fire on purpose. When they reached the North Bridge, a British guard fired into the oncoming militia, but this time the militia didn’t scatter and instead returned fire with a volley of their own.

    The British then started a long march back to Boston not realizing that the numbers of militia were growing. At first the militia followed the British, but soon, they started firing at the British from behind trees and fences. British soldiers began to panic dropping military equipment to retreat from the angry militiamen quicker. And even though a whole brigade of British troops came to reinforce the fleeing column the militiamen continued to press the attack until the British crossed back into Boston.

    250 years ago today, what became known as “The Shot Heard Round the World” kicked off a war that lasted 8 years, saw a colony declare Independence from England, and saw that independent colony become a powerful nation. Let us not just celebrate the start of that road that led to Independence but remember the more than 50 men who died that day never to see what their courage produced after their ultimate sacrifice.

    Joseph RardinVisit Joseph on

    at “Make American History Great Again” for more great stories and interesting facts.