History Lesson for you lurking reich-wingers because I am sick of your ignorance.

I am sick and tired of hearing from you dumbasses how America was created on the principles of deregulation and corporate freedom every bit as much as individual freedom. If you're going to claim to be American "traditionalists", then at least know some history first.

Corporate Sovereignty emerges during the 1600's. King Charles I granted a charter to the Massachusetts Bay Company in 1629 to colonize New England. A few decades later in 1664, King Charles II sent agents to audit the firm, which responded by challenging the King's authority.

This event provided the first recorded clash between the emergent "corporate sovereignty" and the established authority which granted it a charter. Even as early as this time there was a grassroots effort to get corporate charters limited or revoked, the British judicial process placing jurisdiction over corporate litigation into the House of Commons, etc. In short, people began to realize that corporations did not quite behave as expected or desired.

A doctor named John Locke published "Two Treatises of Government" in 1690, criticizing perpetual corporate sovereignty by introducing a notion of individual sovereignty. John Locke writes:

"The power of erecting new corporations, and therewith new representatives, carries with it a supposition that in time the measures of representation might vary, and those have a just right to be represented which before had none; and by the same reason, those cease to have a right, and be too inconsiderable for such a privilege, which before had it."

John Locke's publication criticizing corporate power played an arguable part in influencing the start of the American War of Independence, and the era of individual sovereignty which emerged. Some colonial subjects in America had tired of corporate governance and cited doctor Locke as their legal basis. The American Revolution fought to replace British corporate rule with a new republic form of government. Colonial Americans hated corporations, in the sense that they hated the Crown exercising absolute control over chartering them. In another sense, they hated missing a share of the profits. Damn them little socialists wanting to "spread the wealth".

The resulting United States Constitution made no mention of the word "corporation" whatsoever. Instead, the new United States of America enjoyed a national sovereignty. The system was built on collections of individual sovereignty posed directly against governmental tendencies that had become characteristic of corporate sovereignty.

Corporations were severely restrained within the new republic. They could only be authorized by an act of legislature in one specific state, and not at the federal level. They could only exist for a single purpose serving the public good and only then for a limited period. State legislatures held the power to revoke corporate charters, and voter referendum could initiate that process. So far, so good — so what went wrong?

In 1807, President Thomas Jefferson embargoed Britain and France, leading in part to the War of 1812. Americans needed food, so a political expediency led to a rise of corporate activity: does that sound familiar?

In response, industrialists in New England started forming corporations, explaining that they would feed and clothe the starving masses. Then, in 1819, the US Supreme Court rendered the landmark case Dartmouth College v. Woodward, citing the "contract obligation clause" of the US Constitution. That decision placed charters of existing private corporations outside the jurisdiction of the states which had chartered them. In one stroke, this provided a constitutional framework for federal corporate law, arguably disabling the primary mechanisms for control over corporations.

Corporate abuse was on the rise again, and "states rights" issues emerged from increasing federalization. Legal and political strife pushed tensions between northern and southern factions, which in general aligned along pro- and anti-corporate platforms, respectively. In 1861, the Civil War erupted, ostensibly over the moral issue of slavery, but arguably fought over political and commercial issues. Northerners distrusted the Southern plantation model, convinced that it would not support the economic expansion required for their corporations.

Toward the close of the conflict, in 1864, President Lincoln sent a letter to Col. William F. Elkins, apprehending the war's true nature and eventual outcome. Lincoln wrote:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, ... and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

Note that these words came from the man (one of the first notable Republican leaders) who had championed a bloody war effort to crush anti-corporate rebellion. Slavery was abolished, and three years after the war ended, the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution established "equal protection" under the law for all persons. Or was that "equal protection" for corporations?

Within two decades, in 1886, the infamous Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case invoked the 14th Amendment to protect corporations as "legal persons" which in turn acted as agents and property of "natural persons". In other words, as constitutionally endorsed tulpas. This decision strengthened precedents established by Dartmouth v. Woodward to remove control of corporations from state/populace jurisdiction.

There you have it folks. Thirty years after the ratification of the US Constitution, the original experiment in democracy was over. Defunct by the 1819 US Supreme Court case Dartmouth College v. Woodward. Back to being worse off than they'd fared as colonists, Americans got pissed off and started to war with each other.

No matter what you learned in school (using textbooks produced by corporate publishers, no doubt) the war concerned slavery... It meant precious little about ending the subjugation of African Americans, since de facto civil rights would not even begin to happen for another hundred years! The war, however, meant much more about establishing and enforcing corporate slavery, which subsequently SCOTUS Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad practically guaranteed. America launched into its heyday of trusts, robber barons, etc.

Since then we've had some modest attempts to bridle corporate power through regulations with the very same people who claim to be American "traditionalist" (conservatives/republicans) kicking & screaming, and, fighting us "we the people" on behalf of corporate power.

Now if you're the traditionalists you claim to be then stop being so un-patriotic and anti-American and fight the fight that the early Americans you claim to mimicking fought. But you won't will you? Because lets face it, you're too stupid to realize you're fighting against your own interests and against our country's interests. Prove me wrong.

requires readying comprehension, and intellectual curiosity.

...and that's all that matters. So, if you're unenlightened, and people are calling you stupid and redneck (meaning, of course, White people - Elvis forbid stupidity would be attributed to any minority, another point these people pick up on)wouldn't you rather tune into Beck or Limbaugh who tell you that you're a patriot? Yes, I know that nowhere was the word 'redneck' employed, but it's kind of like Dowd's unspoken 'boy' thing. All this venom and scorn is all fine and dandy, but all you're doing is throwing it out there for a pat on the back from the choir here.

These posts (and there are a lot of them) should be prefaced with: "Hey, y'all, here's what I would like to say to those people..." rather than this silly 'Hey, you stupid fucks, this and that and blah, blah, blah."

Hey, why don't we bring back literacy tests, as well as other sorts of educational and property requirements for the franchise? Maybe we could thin the herd out a bit, and start the sacred journey towards the ideal reign of philosopher-kings?

Yeah, I didn't think so.

like when you get a driver's license, would be great! They should have some even small minimal understanding of the world around them, of how the country works. People who become naturalized citizens must pass a test. These idiots have taken over the airways and town meetings and try to yell everyone else down. They scream they want the government out of everything. That would mean their Social Security, Medicare (they do not even know these are federal programs!?!), highways, national parks, and on and on. They have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. Perhaps, for me, the worst part is they are the most selfish people in the country. Fellow Americans are suffering and dying because they do not have health care and they do not care in the least. The suffering of others means absolutely nothing to them. (I do have good health care.) They can't even spell correctly on their protest signs. They are actually proud of their ignorance and being mean-spirited. They don't complain when veterans benefits are delayed or limited. (I am not a veteran either.)
They call President a Nazi! Again, they have not the slightest idea what that really means. They believe in 'death panels.' For us to be silent is to condone what they do. Very few here would ever go to a meeting and behave in such an ignorant, ugly manner.
If they have to look to Limbaugh or a Beck for their self worth, they must truly be wretched creatures. Instead of yelling and screaming and wanting to bring guns close to the President (Or,as one sign said "I came unarmed THIS time.) maybe they should do as President Kennedy said: 'Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.' I guess you think that we should look the other way, ignore them when they insult our President, deny help to the poor and the unemployed, when they try to gain power using their mob mentality. They don't even know that 'Czar' is a nickname for a government position which has been used previously by both parties. The President has attempted to have meaningful discourse with them but they do not want anything like that. If they are fools enough to put themselves out there looking so ridiculous for the entire world, they are grist for the mill.

they want to create the future on their misguided educations.

All six thousand years of it.

:spray: :evilgrin:

If it doesn't fit into a news scroll or onto a placard I'm afraid your message will be lost.

instead of 'too big to fail'.

I like that:applause:

So, the entire premise of the of "corporate rights" is the result of an illegal, and conspiratorial, lie.

was an attorney for the Big Railroad interests. (Just an aside)

Because their ignorance is so frustrating...

And totally deserving of the 140+ recommends. Thanks for posting this.

Excellent Post!!!

The sad part is these individuals do not want to learn anything... as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink it...

Excellent Post!!!

The sad part is these individuals do not want to learn anything... as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink it...

Make head hurt trying to read.

Must be a commie.


USA! USA!

:fistbump:

a heartfelt thank you! for that. I knew about the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad establishment of corporate "personhood" but had no clue about the earlier stuff. Especially this portion of the Abraham Lincoln quote,

"...and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands..."

That nearly perfectly describes what we see happening today.

Great minds and all that!

:toast:

History is one of my favorite topics. Here's a little more history with respect to corporations.

Back from the late 1400's Spain and Portugal, in particular, dispatched bloodthirsty bastards to pillage the New World. Their brute force probably gets a push from people eager to escape the Inquisition, now in full swing, with good Catholics busy squashing demons.

Elsewhere in Europe, however, the Renaissance flourishes. This is right around the time of daVinci, Paracelsus, Copernicus, Luther, and Mercator. Events during this time set the stage for the birth of other paragons of human insight such as Galileo, Bacon, Bruno, and Newton. Note that the Renaissance drew its lifeblood from heretical and groundbreaking endeavors by these people.

England, however, is considered a wasteland, completely uncivilized and devoid of culture — at least according to the rest of Europe. They've become enemies of the powerful Spanish, especially after a breach with Rome, and the Dutch and French aren't particularly friends either. To make matters worse, England has precious little military and doesn't have money to pay for one anyway. They can barely feed themselves.

Nonetheless, these are the emerging glory days for England. The country has a new Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth I. She's only 24 years old, but, she can outsmart and kick the ass of any power monger in the known world.

England also enjoys a wealth of intellect, people who demonstrate raw smarts, bold courage, and plenty of resources. They don't have the Catholic Church telling them what to think, so they can try out new perspectives and methods, reaching past archaic scholasticism.

Elizabeth applies an interesting strategy. Though she is not particularly adept at government or finance, she surrounds herself with competent people. She sends advisors to the continent to identify new discoveries, technologies, purchase books, etc. These individuals are resourceful, well cultured intellectuals, and ruthless.

So what we have up to now is: Spain sends out conquistadors and missionaries to acquire gold and slaves on behalf of Crown and Church. In contrast, Britain sends out spies to acquire technology and information on behalf of Crown and Commerce. Note the distinctions.

In 1566, Elizabethan advisors assemble plans for the Royal Exchange of London, a shopping mall of barbers, clothiers, merchants, and their warehouses all occupying a building which mingled together England's investment bankers and world explorers. There the Crown can regulate international exchange rates and control trade practices. Meanwhile, England executes a plan to build a high-tech navy.

With the defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588, England is on an upswing. By 1600, a group of merchants gain the Crown's approval to launch the East India Company. It grows huge. It coins the word "factory". It colonizes parts of Southeast Asia and eventually controls India - a move which eventually leads to Mahatma Gandhi's struggle for human rights. The firm becomes an essential key to establishing the military industrial complex called the British Empire.

In the 16th century, finance work much differently than now. Suppose you borrowed money to sail off on an exploration, but lose your ship in a storm. Even if you made it back to England alive, you and all your family will go to debtor's prison for as long as it takes to pay back the loan. Corporations, in contrast, provide new means to "externalize" that risk. Corporate investors may lose equity, but no corporation can be placed into prison. Great way to attract investors, eh? Note the different set of rules for the rich vs the poor through corporatism?

In 1601, Elizabeth signs the Insurance Act and corporations begin to proliferate. As early as 1602, the Dutch copy the idea and establish the Dutch East India Company. The first instance of corporate branding.

Now consider how these essential elements for corporate strategy were applied from the earliest period: espionage for acquiring technology, information management, externalization of risk as an incentive for investors, factories and shopping malls, international trade, currency arbitrage, colonial governance, military ties, and even branding. These elements became standard practice within the first two years of corporate history. After four centuries of dramatic growth, the corporate form persists strikingly similar today and the dumbass conservatives who ignorantly call themselves "traditionalists" expend all their effort to fight for what the early Americans fought against.

You can still find pearls in all this noise. And this is a pearl. I was hardly a citizen, much less an educated citizen when I came to DU but many here have willingly taught and I have learned and learned and hopefully taught some too. But mostly just learned.

I remember my eighth-grade history teacher saying one day, in passing, that the civil war was not really about slavery but he never really followed up on what he was getting at. You taught me something today; Thank you.

but I got a lot out of it. I didn't know most of the older history before Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific.

Thanks!

while it's true that the Civil War saw a clash between an essentially modern-corporate and an economically backward feudal economy, I have to disagree with you that slavery (the institution, not the metaphor of "corporate slavery" as you use it) was not the cause.

True, freeing the slaves was not the cause; but the North was forced to finally free itself from the incessant demands of southern slave society, which had imposed its policies on the Union for decades, most dramatically in the attempted coup d'etat against Kansas and in the Dred Scott decision, which forced the North to enforce slave policing.

In 1861 the incipient CSA initiated the hostilities and threatened to seize Washington DC, the border states, and as much of the US Territories as could be seized. Lincoln had no choice but to defend against what began as a treason and an armed attack launched by the slaveholding class against the Union.

I think you'll enjoy the discussion here as well:

Karl Marx on "The North American Civil War" (1861 article)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6586164&mesg_id=6586164

I would have to say that both of us are correct. Slavery was indeed used to sale the war to the masses, but, as for the people in power it unfortunately really wasn't about the moral aspect of freeing people enslaved. It was about the same old thing - money & power.

right wingers enjoy basking in ignorance, in their mind they are right no matter the facts, the obvious or the truth.

Namely, this:

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, ... and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

It was not written by President Lincoln, but concocted several decades subsequent to his death, first appearing in the 1890s. It has been mistakenly taken as authentic by a few sloppy twentieth century scholars.

If Lincoln was not the author of those words, I'd certainly like to know for sure what the details are.

Thanks for pointing that out Magistrate.

The entry is a good one.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln.asp

The thing does not appear in Life and Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln in IX Volumes by Ms. Miller of Princeton compiled in 1907, which has long been a favorite on my bookshelves. As you will note, there is nothing particularly contradictory in the sentiment expressed to Mr. Lincoln's general views on economic and political life.

While we would differ on the causes of the outbreak of the war, your outline of corporate development and history is well done.

And thanks for the link. I am going to read it now.

It's got to fit on a bumper sticker.

Here's a link to it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6574251

The War of 1812, the Civil War -- and add in both World Wars.

The First World War enabled the corporations, which had been rocked by new anti-trust laws, to stage a comeback, make a number of people extremely rich, and then plunge into an unconstrained capitalist free-for-all in the 1920's.

The Second World War provided an opportunity for firms like Standard Oil, which had been cheerfully dealing with the Nazis during the 1930's, to force a deal on the federal government -- they'd help the war effort if all past sins were forgotten but not otherwise.

The permanent wartime economy which followed has also helped lock corporate dominance into place. Corporations always hold a kind of blackmail power over the society at large, but it's only during wartime that they have the leverage to actually exercise it.

That slavery was just the talking point issue to fire up the citizens enough to kill.

And the south was on the right side of the war opposing corporatism and trying to save American democracy?

That the teabaggers who are screaming about all the bailouts and oppose them taking taxpayer money to prop up the giant corporations are also in the right? And trying to save democracy?

I'm having trouble following your lesson.

I don't recall the kinds of protests for the bailouts as I've witnessed for health care.

Come to think of it, I don't recall protests from the teabaggers when Bush wanted his "wargasm" and the opportunity to flush $3 trillion down the Iraqi toilet.

Only when a black US president proposes health care for all Americans do we hear the hue and cry of the teabaggers...

They both were Irate about the bailouts

As were speakers at the DC protest..

But ya gotta look a little deeper than the cherry picked sensational signs of the fringe.

I had no idea there were also protest in other cites besides DC, until the guy at work said he was at the one in Dallas that day.

Problem is they would have let the financial collapse just collapse, no TARP, no bailout, and little stimulus.

Let the banks fail, let the responsible banks that didn't replace them. Take the big hit and emerge stronger.

They see the banks and AIG being bailed out as a bullet to the head of of a fair free market. With no risk of failure it's just a corrupt oligarchy.

I don't think they realize the implications of what they are saying, but they say it nonetheless.

democracy had actually expired in the US back in 1819. I thought it expired with the National Security Act in 1947.

Your posting is cogent and is being bookmarked by me for future reference. Plainly, allowing the creation of corporations is the single most harmful effect, most likely, on a democracy.

I love reading history too. :hi:

Freeps won't read it.

Does anyone know which Presidents nominated the "Justices" that decided that case?

Edit to add, Thanks for the thread, Xicano.

Harrison appointment. Figures, huh?

Interestingly, the dissenting opinion in Plessy v Ferguson was written by Justice John Marshall Harlan, a former Kentucky slave owner.



That is why I love American history-- it is because at times it is utterly unbelievable.

You sorta tried to be informative, although you started off by calling anyone who might disagree with you a 'dumbass'. Probably not the best way to begin.

You also include some strange editorializing in your essay. The Civil War was "ostensibly over the issue of slavery", and apparently I have been living in some sort of dictatorship "Thirty years after the ratification of the Constitution, the original experiment in democracy was over." And "corporate slavery" was 'established and enforced" through the Civil War.

Those are all your interpretation of events, rather than factual accounts. I personally find them to be somewhat bizzare interpretations too.

But I must be stupid because anybody who does not agree with you and work on your side gets called 'too stupid' by you. I am not even sure what 'your side' is. Are we supposed to be fighting for the Baucus bill that mandates that we all have to buy health insurance from corporations or for some unspecified Obama version with a limited and inconsequential public option which isn't essential anyway (according to Obama)?

the Articles of Secession. Slavery is mentioned in nearly every single paragraph.

It was ironically the rich business men who killed the weak federal government under the articles of confederation and got the founding fathers to write up the constitution, then pushed for it to protect their business interests. Having a stable government, and the same currency in all the states (instead of different currency like it used to be), and a government to do stuff like put tariffs on foreign competitors goods was exactly what they wanted when they pushed for the constitution.

It wasn't until over a century later that big business started to turn on big government, when big government started to pass consumerism laws because of the people wanting it. Consumerism stopped big business from being able do a lot of stuff that hurt consumers.

:applause:

I do hope that no one comes in here and decries your lovely writing with:

with great indignation - "you suppose to educate me???"


ah well - who can do that?

good luck!

you are on my buddy list now :P

They can't read it. :eyes:

of unlimited market, basically no regulation and no tariffs. This explains much of their ignorance of the "American tradition."

I love to learn and it was a pleasure to read these and the other posts in this thread.:)

And needed because the right is re writing history.

Thanks for putting in the effort to do this great thread Xicano.

whether you're discussing corporate power or universal health care or global warming.

There are plenty of smart people in the corporations, plenty of smart people fighting to deny us a publicly financed health care system, and plenty of smart global-warming deniers. The issue lies not in brains but in something more fundamental. The Ojibwe Indians I knew in my youth would have called it "good-heartedness." It is variously expressed in small and inconspicuous acts of charity, or in great ways, as when a President pushes through a national retirement plan intended to keep the elderly out of poverty. It is about love and empathy. It is about values, it is about decency.

Thanks: This was very informative!

That is so cool...and so accurate.

Thank you for the history lesson. I knew the bare bones, but it was good to see the framework named and fleshed! :)

Why use supposed "lurkers" who can't respond as an excuse for a rant that would be better directed at actual right-wingers than here at DU?

Not that there aren't right-wingers at DU; they don't "lurk." They pose as "centrists."

Not that I don't agree with much of the rant. I just don't think you've pointed it at the correct audience.

While it is true that economics played a small part of the controversy between NvS, the slavery issue was in play since the Constitution was written and really gained momentum in the Jackson presidency. Only by Jackson stationing troops in N.C. that were loyal to the union did N.C. remain in the union during this period. If you google "nullification" you should be able to find information about what was boiling during that time or read, "Andrew Jackson in the White House, American Lion," by Jon Meacham.

Economics was a big issue because slavery drove economics.

Or rather the economics slavery enabled was a big factor.

By the time of the Civil War the south had a considerably different culture and economy than the north. While the central issue was undoubtedly slavery (at least for the south), the vast majority of southerners didn't own slaves and could not hope to own them. They saw an increasing attack on their way of life. Whether the end of slavery would have affected the masses to any large degree is mostly irrelevant because most believed it would and perhaps others saw it as a slippery slope.

It's really not all that much different 150 years later if you think about it. Those in the south continue to imagine attacks on their way of life. My answer to them is if their 'way of life' is built on bigotry, then it does need to be attacked.

I edited a few parts of your article and sent to my friends with you as the author.

I'd love to know who *did* write that quote falsely attributed to Lincoln. They were quite prescient. I suspect it was someone familiar with Karl Marx's works. Marx died in 1883, and that quote appeared around that time.

Again, thanks everybody for your replies and recommends. I would like to add a little review concerning my words pertaining to the Civil War - a few people have correctly pointed out the Civil War was indeed about slavery.

I agree and my apologies if my wording was misleading. What I point out, using the reality of history concerning African American subjugation, is that the Civil War is taught to us the way the war on terrorism is sold to us. The war on terrorism is indeed a war against people who have committed acts of terrorism as defined. However, we all here at DU know that's not actually the real reason. We all know it has to do with exploiting terrorism for ulterior motives, namely financial empire expansionism. What I am posting about the Civil War is somewhat similar.

In my post, and again my apologies if it was misleading, I say: "No matter what you learned in school (using textbooks produced by corporate publishers, no doubt) the war concerned slavery...It meant precious little about ending the subjugation of African Americans, since de facto civil rights would not even begin to happen for another hundred years!

It looks as if I should of added the word However in front of "It meant". My grammar is sometimes not the best. :)

Anyway, thanks again for the replies everyone.

:hi:


On Edit: I would also like to add. The distinction I make is with respect to the money powers, not the general masses.

Samual Adams, one of the "Sons of Liberty" and well known for playing a pivotal role promoting and encouraging a rebellion against the Crown's authority. His family's maltster business, where his father made him a partner, placed him on the docks in contact with the "men-along-the-shore", the term where the word "longshoreman" is derived, and of course pirates who I am sure some, if not many, were men-along-the-shore.

Being exposed to these men (who many referred to as vagrants, men of disrepute) played a significant role in shaping Samual Adams' perspective of human rights and equal rights, in contrast with the rights of Englishmen, etc.

In his news paper the Independent Advertiser he published many political essays which were heavily influenced by none other than doctor John Locke's Two Treatises of Government and his exposure to the men-along-the-shore who were amongst the most exploited labor and who worked for the shipping business. So of course Samual Adams is being heavily influenced by anti-corporate literature and people who are terribly being exploited by a facet of the oligarchy, the day's shipping industry. Yet another example of anti-corporate attitudes being a driving factor precipitating the American War of Independence. Hear that "traditionalist"?

While on the subject of dockworkers and the American Revolution. It cannot be left out how big a role the practice of impressment played in inflaming a cause for revolt. In 1597 Queen Elizabeth I signed the "Vagrancy Act" where men of disrepute were abducted into service. British officers would kidnap men-along-the-shore and other men considered vagrants and press them into service aboard navy ships. However, what would often happen is these inexperienced seamen would be exchanged (often by force) for more experienced seamen aboard merchant vessels. So as a result of the despised practice of impressment people were being forced not only to serve the navy, but, also, forced to serve business. Yet another example why early Americans loathed corporations and another example of anti-corporate attitudes along with anti-Crown authority attitudes being a factor culminating into the American War of Independence.

One last interesting bit of history with regard to merchant vessels. They weren't keen on the idea of losing their experienced seamen and being replaced by inexperienced, recently abducted into impressment, seamen. So there are examples of merchant vessels exchanging fire with British navy vessels. Illustrating another example where corporate attitudes ignore authority from those who granted them a charter.

The conservative/republican notion of being a traditionalist by expending their energy and wealth to fight for corporate agendas (so-called "free-market" capitalism) is not only a frustrating and sad display of their ignorance, "traditionally" its contrary to the early Americans they claim to be mimicking. That "Don't Tread On Me" flag is, in my opinion from history, not just a statement against Crown authority, its also a statement against corporate sovereignty.

It is also my opinion that longshoreman of the day don't get the credit I feel is due for the role they played helping precipitate the Revolution. How big that influence was is something up for debate, but, in my opinion they're not given any credit where I feel they should get some.


Peace,