Years ago while reading about the American Revolution I came across the following statistics that for some reason stuck with me.
The author wrote that perhaps only 1/3 of the American colonists were actively rebellious against the British crown. Another 1/3 were actively loyal to the crown and the remaining 1/3 just wanted to be left alone.
Knowing what I know about the war the author’s statistics had the ring of truth to them. Certainly the British must have thought that those in actual rebellion were a relative minority and largely confined to New England hotheads otherwise they might have been more inclined to negotiate rather than fight a rather long tedious war against their American cousins.
It’s the 1/3 who wanted to be left alone that intrigues me. Were they so remote on the frontier that whatever government that was running things was largely irrelevant? Perhaps the 1/3 simply did not care or perhaps they were waiting to see which way the wind blew before they took a side? Perhaps it was a combination of these and other factors that combined to have 1/3 of the population sit out the conflict.
Whatever the 1/3’s motives were it was the 1/3 rebellious that prevailed in the end, much to the astonishment of a tired Great Britain and much to the chagrin of the 1/3 loyalists who were booted into Canada by the vengeful rebels.
The parties fight over the 36% who are perceived as going either way in any given election. I found the 36% curiously close to the 33% who didn’t want to pick a side during the American Revolution. What is equally clear is that the Obama team gathered enough moderates to win an election twice despite the fact that social and economic conservatives out number liberal\progressives by a 2-1 margin.
Never-the-less, the liberal/progressives won twice and what’s more remarkable their so-called moderate allies and the mainstream media seem to care less that the Obama Administration resents the Constitution and tramples upon it on a regular basis in a barely disguised attempt at vindictiveness just as the winners in the American Revolution were vindictive against those who were loyal to the British Crown.
The proof is obvious to anyone with eyes to see..
Everyone who has at least some interest in the news knows that the IRS targeted groups seeking non-profit status if the group had “patriot” or “tea party” and perhaps other key words in the group’s names. The fact that corresponding liberal\progressive groups were not targeted strongly suggest vindictiveness, harassment and intimidation.
But there is more. Other groups were targeted as well and these groups were and are socially conservative faith groups.
Perhaps the best know is Samaritan’s Purse (Franklin Graham) and the Billy Graham Evangelical Association, two separate organizations linked together through the well-known Graham name. The groups were targeted because they urged voters in North Carolina to vote for those with “biblical values.”
In politics there is always something called “to victor belongs the spoils” but that is different from a planned vindictiveness that can only breed further resentment and divide an increasingly divided people.
President Obama likes to compare himself with Abraham Lincoln, the US President that led the nation through a bloody Civil War. With amazing foresight in the middle of a conflict not yet won Lincoln painted a vision for the future, a future that included a fully reconciled South. He ended his Second Inaugural Speech with these words:
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations. (Full text of speech)
President Obama, if you really want to be like Lincoln then cease being the vindictive, petty President that you are.