‘Leave the Wolf Alone!’…Cried the Sheep

Photo credit: Rutger Fredrik von Essen

Photo credit: Rutger Fredrik von Essen

Gun Control Politics

The ruling class doesn’t care about public safety. Having made it very difficult for States and localities to police themselves, having left ordinary citizens with no choice but to protect themselves as best they can, they now try to take our guns away. In fact, they blame us and our guns for crime. This is so wrong that it cannot be an honest mistake. – former Wyoming Senator Malcolm Wallop

Frank Lloyd Wright once said, “I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools…let’s start with typewriters.” Although the technology used by “journalists’ has improved, their tendency towards foolishness…and outright idiocy… has only worsened. As Wright also wrote, “There is nothing as uncommon as common sense.”

So let’s remove the knee-jerk hysteria that the liberals/progressives/socialists or whatever they’re calling themselves today always introduce, and discuss the topic of guns from a common sense perspective. Author Tiffany Madison wrote, “Our Founders grasped that self-defense is three-fold: every free individual must protect themselves against the evil will of the man, the mob and the state.”

First, protecting ourselves from other men. Unless you’ve lived in a protective cocoon all your life, you’re surely aware that some people in this country will bully and otherwise torment those weaker than themselves. In the schoolyard, on the street, at the workplace, wherever humans interact, there are always some who are willing to use their greater power – size, strength, toughness, etc. – to obtain what they want, even if it means trampling on and harming others.

In the Old West life proved to be “nasty, brutish and short” if you couldn’t defend yourself and your family from wild animals, Indians, outlaws, etc. Referred to as “the Great Equalizer,” the Colt .45 revolver gave even the weakest former city dweller an opportunity to stand up to those physically stronger and of brutal temperament. “God made men. . .but Sam Colt made them equal” was not just a pithy saying, for the Colt pistol did more to protect the innocent than all the legendary lawmen combined.

But that was in wilder times, you argue, before the rule of law was established, along with a criminal justice system, the courts, police departments, etc., which protect the weak from the strong today. While that’s largely true, the fact remains that “when seconds count, the police are only moments away,” and even the police will tell you that if you’re counting on them to prevent a mugging, rape, home invasion or other assault, you’re just being irresponsible.

Woodrow Wilcox

ADVERTISEMENT

Next, protecting ourselves from the mob. Several years ago my grown son had dinner at our house.  Then, upon leaving, he turned a corner and was blocked by a mob that had left a nearby park and were swarming into the street chanting and shouting about some injustice or another. He and others were trapped in their vehicles, unable to move, at the mercy of the mob. No police were in sight, although sirens indicated they were on their way, and he thought he would be victim to the anger and vehemence being displayed. Thankfully, all they threw were vile slogans and angry taunts, and as soon as they cleared the street, he quickly went on his way.

As we’ve seen more recently, it doesn’t always turn out that way. The virulently racist group Black Lives Matter have repeatedly rioted, burned and looted, supposedly as a way of calling for “justice” for black men shot by the police. Do you want to trust your safety and that of your loved ones to the non-existent mercy of a mindless mob, regardless of how noble/just (or not) their cause?

ObamaMagicAct

ADVERTISEMENT

Unfortunately, there are individuals and mobs today who are willing to inflict all manner of violence not just on other people but also on the very society that has accepted and nurtured them. I’m speaking, of course, of radical Islamists. What fool believes that human reason or moral persuasion protects against those so consumed with hatred and violence? I prefer to trust my semi-automatic pistol, which in any of the Islam-generated tragedies over the past few years would have saved countless lives.

Finally, protecting ourselves from the state, that insatiable wolf that’s always lurking at the door of liberty. The Founders were crystal clear in their thoughts on the necessity for individual citizens to be armed to prevent and, if need be, resist tyranny. Nevertheless, the Left has been successful in attacking the Second Amendment, and in claiming that “assault rifles” (a media invention) are needed only by the police and the military. . .you know, the institutions that serve those in power. There are hundreds of quotes from the Founders defending the right of individual citizens to be armed, but they can be condensed into this anonymous quote: “An armed man is a citizen. A disarmed man is a subject.” C. S. Wheatley stated, “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence…the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference…”

Politicians on the left and the media would have you believe that there is currently an “epidemic” of shootings and killing all across this nation, while the truth is that homocide, by any means, is only the 28th leading cause of death in the U.S. In fact, deaths from automobile accidents typically account for three times the 11,000 annual firearm-related deaths, but we don’t hear the Left calling for a ban on automobiles. Why is that, do you think? This quote from William Pitt (the Younger) gives a clue: “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

Firearms simply reduce the power differential between the law-abiding and the criminal, making it harder for the strong to prey upon the weak. Like any tool, a firearm can be used irresponsibly and even criminally, as the nightly news shows. But instead of trying to ban automobiles, we focus on educating drivers and warning them about the dangers of drinking or texting while driving, and hold them accountable for violations that result in injury or deaths to others. Why not that same approach to firearms, instead of deeming them “evil” (as if an inanimate object possesses a will)?

Over two million times annually firearms are used to thwart violence, assaults, muggings, rapes, etc., but the Left’s politicians and the media never mention that. Do you think they don’t know it? Or is it for some other reason that they claim the “necessity” of restricting and reducing the ownership of firearms?

We’re not living in the Nirvana the liberals keep telling us they’re creating by their anti-Constitutional polices. There are dangerous characters out there who prey on those they perceive as weak and vulnerable, and all the police do is make out a report and draw chalk around the body, or protect the firemen who try to limit the damage of mobs, or carry out the sometimes unjust orders of their political bosses. There are 100 million Americans who own guns and use those tools in a sensible, responsible manner, never resulting in harm, or even threat, to others. Yet the incessant call from the Left is for ever stronger gun control laws, as if criminals and tyrants gave a damn about the law.

Guns are not the problem, for they can’t do anything unless a human being with a will picks them up and uses them. The problem for the Left is their own success: for the past fifty years they’ve dismantled the moral foundations of this society, replacing the rule of law that used to be internalized by all Americans, native-born or immigrants, with the divisiveness of entitled identity groups and racial politics, pitting Americans against one another. Ask yourself, “Who benefits from that scheme?” The answer is only those in power, who must mediate between all the conflicting agendas and desires, acquiring ever more power for themselves. They know an armed citizenry is capable of reducing, or removing, that power.

When I was just a youth (17), I volunteered to serve this nation, and gladly gave four years of my life doing so, including fighting in what turned out to be a failed war. I was naïve enough to believe their rhetoric and their claims of good intentions for their deceitful plans. Vietnam was a tragedy because of the spineless, amoral politicians of both parties who cared more about their own power than the lives of young Americans, or the future of the people of South Vietnam, whom we shamelessly abandoned.

I’m no longer young, nor so naïve, and I see in this gun control frenzy the same deceit, the same amoral pandering to people’s fears and ignorance. No matter which party puppet is in office, we allow government to disarm us only at the cost of what little bit of freedom remains.

Ben Franklin said it best: “They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Please think about that come November.


This article is printed with the permission of the author(s). Opinions expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the article’s author(s), or of the person(s) or organization(s) quoted therein, and do not necessarily represent those of American Clarion or Dakota Voice LLC.

Comment Rules: Please confine comments to salient ones that add to the topic; Profanity is not allowed and will be deleted; Spam, copied statements and other material not comprised of the reader’s own opinion will be deleted.


Formerly a liberal and an atheist, Paul E. Scates served as a Marine in Vietnam and is a lifelong student of American history, politics and culture. A former contributor to national website TooGoodReports.com, he writes his staunchly independent Conservative and informed Christian commentary for his fellow ordinary, working Americans, the “we, the people” who are ultimately responsible for preserving our Constitutional liberties.
Paul E. Scates
View all articles by Paul E. Scates
  • Richard Robinson

    “Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence…the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference…”

    That’s very impressive quote that you have attributed to Washington but I would bet heavy that it is a complete fake. It doesn’t match up with Washington’s philosophy or attitudes and I think that you either fabricated it yourself or copied it from someone else who did. Those two ellipses send up a red flag. What are you hiding in there?

    Please show a legitimate source – that would be something published during Washington’s lifetime. I have read a lot of American history and don’t expect that you will be able to do so.

    • DCM7

      This seems to settle the question:
      http://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/02/26/firearm/

      The quote is neither genuine nor a fabrication, but misattributed to Washington based on a misunderstanding. As you can see here it was actually written by someone who quoted and commented on an address by Washington.

      • That’s what I was able to find.

        The statement IS, however, in keeping with Washington’s views on government and armed citizens, as well as the rest of the founders.

        A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies. – George Washington

        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. – Richard Henry Lee

        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

        The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people. – Fisher Ames

        • DCM7

          I’ve been amazed at how much denial there is about what the founding fathers actually said, although the false arguments about that seem to have mostly been replaced by a more honest (but obviously still wrong) attitude of “why should I care what a bunch of 18th-century white males thought?”

          • It’s an ever-shifting, ever-moving goal post, born out of the quest to avoid the logical implications of what the founders said…which exposes the reprobate and illegitimate nature of Leftist goals.

          • Thisoldspouse

            Yep, when it is indisputably proven what the founding fathers have unambiguously said, the tactic then shifts to disparage the Founders. Such a weak base of argument.

  • ramrodd

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
    that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that
    among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-That to secure
    these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers
    from the consent of the governed, -That whenever any Form of Government becomes
    destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
    it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
    and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
    effect their Safety and Happiness.

  • The only BS here is what you’re peddling.

    You made one legitimate point, which was that the quote in the article was incorrectly attributed to George Washington, when it should have actually been to C. S. Wheatley who made the statement in a discussion about George Washington.

    And the reason the article now reads that way is because I, as editor, corrected the error. That’s what decent people do when their error is pointed out to them: they correct it. It would be nice if you could rise to that level and correct your ongoing error.

    It seems pretty clear that your angle is opposition to gun ownership and the Second Amendment. Yet the importance of gun ownership, not only to the personal defense of one’s life and property but to the maintenance of freedom as well, has been strongly demonstrated here…yet you continue to insinuate that such views are illegitimate, and that the founders, including George Washington, did not hold this view.

    Had George Washington not believed this, and instead held to the views of modern gun control advocates, he would not have said, “A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined,” as he did in his first annual address to congress on January 8, 1790.

    The founders were not big on standing armies in peace time (they had just finished having had one used against them-which was a big reason for the whole American Revolution thing).

    Instead, they believed in an armed citizenry, because that armed citizenry would function as both an army of defense against external tyranny, as well as an army of defense against internal tyranny.

    How do we know this? The founders told us so.


    A militia 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 posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Melancton Smith, delegate to the Continental Congress, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788.

    I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. – George Mason, June 16, 1788, Debates of the Several State Conventions

    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. – Noah Webster, October 17, 1787, An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Constitution

    The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves…or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be AT ALL TIMES ARMED; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press. – Thomas Jefferson, Letter To Major John Cartwright – Monticello, June 5, 1824

    In opposing the God-given right to keep and bear arms, you oppose not only those who crafted this great nation, but liberty itself.

    • Richard Robinson

      I’m not suggesting that individuals don’t have the right to own guns. I served in Vietnam and have had a belly-full of people with bullet holes in them and I own one gun but I do not feel that the 2nd Amendment is what gives me that right.

      Madison must have felt very strongly about something in order to suggest in 1789 a change to the brand new Constitution. A look at what he wrote in Federalist #46 in the previous year gives me a clue.

      “The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition”

      He and Jefferson were filled with hatred of Washington, Adams and Hamilton and feared that the standing army and navy provided in the Constitution would allow the federal government to overpower and perhaps even eliminate the state governments. He wanted to thwart this threat by insuring the existence of state organized militias.

      The US at that time was a rural agrarian society and guns were a part of everyday life. Only 2 cities (NYC and Philly had more than 20,00 residents in the 1790 census – Boston came close). I read a lot of history and have never come across even a mention of any fear that the federal government would take away or limit the individual’s ability to own a gun. To believe that Madison was worried about losing the individual’s right to own guns is to assume that he was providing a solution to a problem that didn’t even exist.

      Next comes the idiom “bear arms”. Does it mean to wage war as part of an organized militia or army or does it mean to walk around with a gun? If you like the second choice then what does “to be under arms” mean? Perhaps lying down with guns on your chest. What about “take up arms”. Does it mean to pick up a gun? Does “lay down arms” mean to cease fighting or to drop your gun on the ground? What are the artillerymen supposed to do? Alexis de Tocqueville, on his visit to America around 1835 wrote about the colony of Connecticut:

      “The citizens above the age of sixteen were obliged to bear arms; they formed a national militia.”

      Does that mean they were required to always tote a gun around with them? In that age, “bears arms” was obviously a military term. Shakespeare in King John calls a war with another army “just-borne arms” and in Richard II calls a civil war “self-borne arms.” The term “arms” was even used as a profession, much as “law” is for an attorney.

      Lastly: Justice Scalia’s opinion for the majority in DC v Heller. Here is the section that drives me up the wall.

      “The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” See Linguists’ Brief 18; post, at 11 (Stevens, J., dissenting). But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,” which was in turn followed by the target of the hostilities. See 2 Oxford 21.”

      In plain English he says, “OK, OK, I know that Madison meant for “to bear arms” to mean wage war, and I know it’s been interpreted that way for 200 years or so, but I just made up a new rule. The new rule is that if you don’t follow it with “against _______ (you fill in the blank)”, it just means walking around with a gun in you hand. End of argument, because I have 4 other lawyers who will vote with me.” He even threw in unequivocally to make it sound really official.

      If only Madison had written “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms against ________ (you fill in the blank), shall not be infringed.” we would all have been a lot better off.

      • You’re right that the Second Amendment doesn’t give you the right to keep and bear arms. God gave you that right, and the Second Amendment guarantees it under the American form of government.

        You say you’ve never come across even a mention of any fears that the federal government would take away or limit the individual’s ability to own a gun? Why do you think the founders made those statements I cited earlier?

        A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined. – George Washington

        A militia 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 posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Melancton Smith, delegate to the Continental Congress, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788.

        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. – Noah Webster, October 17, 1787, An Examination Into the Leading Principles of the Constitution

        The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves…or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be AT ALL TIMES ARMED; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press. – Thomas Jefferson, Letter To Major John Cartwright – Monticello, June 5, 1824

        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. – Richard Henry Lee

        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

        The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people. – Fisher Ames

        It is clear from these statements and many others that the founders feared the power of government, and feared a government powerful enough to disarm its citizens. The act that, as much or more than anything, kicked off the American Revolution was the move of the British government to disarm the citizens of Concord.

        What it means to “bear arms” isn’t hard to figure out, either. “Bear” means to carry. You can carry arms in a passive means, and you can carry arms in an active means where you plan to imminently use them. Lay down with a gun on your chest? Don’t be silly. This stuff isn’t hard to figure out at all. The only confusion that comes in is that which is manufactured to obscure a God-given right.

        Scalia also explains the same thing I just did in Heller. Additionally, he points out that bearing arms usually means carrying it for a particular purpose, i.e. confrontation. Anyone who carries a gun (a cop, a soldier, an armed citizen) carries the weapon not because they expect never to be confronted with violence, but BECAUSE they expect sooner or later to be confronted with violence-and they want the means necessary to resist that violence. That threat of violence could be from an armed citizen bent on doing harm to their life or property, or it could be an agent of government bent on the same.

        Madison didn’t need to write “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms against ________ (you fill in the blank), shall not be infringed.” For one thing, the list would be far too long, and the principle is more than enough, because for another thing, you have the right to keep and bear arms against ANY form of illegitimate aggression, whether it is from a neighbor bent on your harm, or a government official bent on your harm.

        • Richard Robinson

          With all those quotes you are reenforcing my argument that in the revolutionary period and much further into the future there was no threat to the individual’s right to own guns. Nothing that you list is demonstrating that there was a danger to this right. Every one of them is supporting the citizens’ right to weapons. Not one of them is saying “Let’s take guns away from people”.

          That is why I contend that to believe that Madison wanted to protect the individual’s rights is to say that he wrote a solution to a problem that didn’t exist.

          Find a quote from that period in which someone is advocating limiting the right to own a gun. Until you do that you are supporting my opinion that the 2nd Amendment was not about individual rights. Nothing of that sort was even needed. The more of these quotes you produce the more you show that you agree with my opinion about why the 2nd Amendment was written.

          Madison and Jefferson were worried about the right of the states to maintain their militias against the Federalists not about individual rights to own guns Those rights were very secure and had a multitude of supporters to defend them – as you have just demonstrated.

          But about the meaning of bear arms, why did Scalia write this?

          “The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.”

          He knew that it was not as simple as you claim. What do you think “to be under arms” means? I claim that it is a military term, just like all the others I listed – including “to bear arms”.

          • The founders weren’t as worried about the threat to the individual right to keep and bear arms after the American Revolution as they were before; after all, they had adopted the Second Amendment to spell out the right to keep and bear arms.

            It’s interesting to note that most of the Bill of Rights was inspired by the wrongs perpetrated against the American colonists by their own British government prior to the Revolution. They were right to fear government and fear being disarmed by their own government because their own government had attempted to do just that to them. Their fear wasn’t based on wild paranoia, but on cold, hard life experience with tyranny.

            You claim the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms wasn’t about an individual right. Yet that would be out of keeping with the rest of the Bill of Rights. Is freedom of religious expression an individual right? Is freedom of speech an individual right? Is the right to petition the government for redress of grievance an individual right? Is the right against self incrimination an individual right? Is the right to be secure in one’s person and property an individual right?

            It makes no sense whatsoever to assume that the one right protected by the Second Amendment was somehow a government or corporate right, when all the other rights extend to individuals. Frankly, that’s a bunch of crap manufactured by Leftists to attempt to excuse disarming citizens.

            Who do you think the militia was made up of? It was made up of private citizens, private citizens who had their own arms. 10 U.S. Code § 311 makes this clear:


            (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
            (b) The classes of the militia are—
            (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
            (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

            And yet again, one of the delegates to the Continental Congress also made this clear:

            A militia 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 posses arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them. – Melancton Smith, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788.

            As did other founders:

            I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. – George Mason, June 16, 1788, Debates of the Several State Conventions

            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, during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

            Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. – Tench Coxe, 1788, Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress

            Regarding Heller again, I thought I covered that pretty clearly earlier, so I’m not going to go over it again. But I will tell you that the passage of text surrounding what you quoted adds additional background, context and insight. I suggest you go back and read Scalia’s entire opinion again. Military people are not the only people to carry arms-never have been throughout thousands of years of history, and God willing, never will be.

            • Richard Robinson

              Yeah, you covered it pretty thoroughly. You said “What it means to “bear arms” isn’t hard to figure out”.

          • Dean Weingarten

            You are being deliberately obtuse. The founders had just fought a long and brutal war where the government was intent on disarming the people. The war started with an attempt to seize arms and ammunition from a militia, but disarming of the people of Boston soon followed.

            To claim that they did not see a threat to disarm individuals is silly. Militias cannot be disarmed if individuals are left armed. Which is one of the main points of the Second Amendment.

            • Richard Robinson

              Any verifiable evidence of attempts by the new government to confiscate arms from the populace after the revolution?

              • I think Dean is right. You’re being deliberately obtuse. We’ve been over this several times now, and the last time I went over it, any rational person should have been able to understand. That is, you were willing to deal with reality and accept that your claims that the right to keep and bear arms isn’t a personal right is inaccurate.

                I think it’s time for you to be on your way, as far as commenting goes.

  • DCM7

    Did you not bother to actually read and comprehend my response before replying, or are you deliberately misrepresenting things? Those are literally the only options.

  • Jay Eimer

    Under the “man, mob, state” divisions, the mob is not just the rioters, it is also democracy. The US is a Republic, intentionally. The Bill of Rights define civil rights that predate the constitution and that can’t be infringed by the government – EVEN if the “people” say they want to do so. Civil Rights are to protect the minority, therefore public opinion (and thus democracy) are moot.

  • VonZorch Imperial Reseacher

    The wild west should be the mild west. Every bit of research I’ve seen shows total and violent crime rates much lower that today.

  • VonZorch Imperial Reseacher

    No, you idiot. you are the only one attributing the quote to Washington, the rest of us know who it’s from, C. S. Wheatley.

    • Richard Robinson

      No, Man:
      You’re not really paying attention are you. I’m the one who point4d out the error. The author of the article is not much of a historian or he would have had some suspicions about that type of statement coming from Washington and he is very careless for not verifying where it really came from before he posted it on the web. It is written in 20th century English, has a couple of ellipses in it and doesn’t pass the smell test for something from before 1800.
      Everybody else here who read the article said “Yeah, cool quote from George Washington!” Somebody had to change the article after I called it a fake.
      Hey, do you even know who C. S. Wheatley is? Ever hear of him before?