mr peters speaks about the independence we once had; 

 

July the 4th is a strange holiday. People who aren’t free to be left in peace are celebrating what, exactly? That the state only takes a fourth to a third of every dollar they earn? Well, that’s certainly something to be grateful for, perhaps. But celebrate? Do the convicts in prison celebrate when the warden says they can stay in the yard an extra half-hour before being returned to their cells? If they do, it is a degradation; a form of buck dancing.

The 4th is supposed to be the day Americans celebrate the day the Declaration of Independence was promulgated. More specifically, the day that the American colonists – well, some of them – officially declared that they were henceforth independent of the authority of the state of Great Britain. This is the important part and that is why it is the part that is almost never discussed and when it is discussed, it is discussed only cursorily, without getting into what it means. The reason why is obvious.

It was not merely that a Declaration of Independence from the state of Great Britain was promulgated. That is problematic enough, from the standpoint of modernity. After all, if it was legitimate – something to be celebrated – for the American colonists to say, in effect: We deny that the state of Great Britain legitimately rules us. We withdraw our consent and by doing so, the state no longer has moral authority to exert its authority over us. We are separating ourselves from the state of Great Britain.

These are extremely dangerous words.

At least, they became so after the failed attempt of the Southern states to withdraw their consent and separate from a union they no longer wished to be a part of. They also declared independence – withdrew their consent – on April 17, 1861 and this day would have been a day to celebrate had the Southern states successfully asserted their independence, as the thirteen colonies did.

Talk of slavery is a kind of important non sequitur. Of course slavery is a terrible thing. Who would say it is not? But it is beside the point. More finely, it is the point (the non sequitur) that statist want everyone to focus on in making the case that Southern states were in the wrong because there was slavery in the South. Certainly. But it is the principle of consent-withdrawal they do not want discussed, especially among kids. That is crucial. They are taught that Abe Lincoln subdued the Southern states to end slavery. That was incidental. He himself said so, repeatedly. The war was fought to make it clear that the consent of the governed was no longer required, as far as the state was concerned. Abe didn’t quite out it that way, of course. He waxed eloquent about the “union,” as if that made a forced arrangement sacred.

Of course, the state of Great Britain had the same view..........more...........