July 4, 2024 • 50 mins
On this Independence Day special, Lisa discusses the foundations of America and the importance of individual liberty and freedom. She's joined by historian Dr. Brion McClanahan to explore the lead-up to the Declaration of Independence and the core principles that motivated the founding generation. They debunk misconceptions about the American Revolution and highlight the resistance and rebellion against British tyranny. The conversation also touches on the relevance of these historical events in today's context and the need to preserve America's founding principles. The Truth with Lisa Boothe is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Monday & Thursday.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Well, first off, Happy Independence Day. I hope everyone is
having an amazing day. I hope you're spending time with
the people you love. I hope you're spending time with
your friends, your family. Maybe you're on a trip, maybe
you're just doing a staycation, or maybe even have to work.
But I hope it's a great day. Nonetheless, as we
celebrate Independence days, we celebrate America's independence from a monarchy,
(00:21):
we look today at what has really transpired over the
past few years, particularly during COVID and I talk about
this a lot on the show, but it was so
eye opening for me. I'm sure it was for a
lot of you guys at home. Of just tyranny is here? Right?
We're not immune to tyranny. Of course, we weren't back
when this nation was founded, but we're certainly not today.
And if you look back at the founding generation or
(00:42):
founding fathers, they didn't put up with it, right, They
weren't putting up with this oppressive regime from far away
trying to strangle their way of life, trying to impose
on their way of life, trying to dictate to them
their way of life. So why are we putting up
with it? Today, right, why are we putting up with
our government. I'm not saying we don't have to to,
obviously the tactics that are Founding Generation resorted to, but
(01:04):
there are other ways to fight back. There are other
ways to fight back, you know, locally, to fight back
against government, to fight back against tyranny, and to resist
a little bit. So today, what I want to do
is sort of revisit the foundations of America, Revisit our
founding fathers, revisit the Founding Generation. You know, why was
(01:25):
America born? You know what happened in the lead up
before the Decoration of Independence, you know what happened to
that lead up before July fourth, seventeen seventy six. So
we're going to get into that with a historian. His
name is doctor Bryan McClanahan. He has his own podcast,
The Brian McLanahan Show. You can check it out on Apple.
(01:46):
I listened to like five yesterday. It's super interesting. He
gets into a lot of real world issues, today's issues
from a historical perspective, and he just has really interesting
takes on it. He's a really smart guy. So he's
also the author and co author of six books. He's
written books like The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding
Fathers The Founding Father's Guide to the Constitution. He's a
(02:07):
faculty member at the tom Woods Liberty Classroom. He received
a bachelor's degree in history from Salisbury University, of masters
in history from the University of South Carolina, as well
as his PhD in history from the University of South Carolina.
It's just a really interesting guy. So today, on this
Independence Day, we're going to talk about individual liberty. We're
going to talk about freedom. We're going to talk about
(02:28):
the birth of America, why this country is special, why
this country needs to be preserved, and what we can
do to preserve it. So I hope you enjoyed this
fourth of July Independence Day Special with doctor Brian McLanahan.
(02:53):
Doctor Brian McLanahan, thanks so much for joining The Truth
with Lisa Booth. I appreciate your time.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Well, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
I appreciate Itbviously, this is for the Independence Day Special.
You know, we've sort of seen a lot of narratives
that we believe to be true have been contradicted and
shown to not be true, and a lot of what
we thought we were insulated and immune from in America
like tyranny. We saw during COVID that we are actually not.
So I kind of wanted to revisit American history or
(03:20):
nation's foundings and sort of how far we've gone from
that beginning, and I thought you'd be the perfect person
for this episode.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Well, I appreciate you having me on. Yes. I mean
it's when you look at what's happened in America over
the last couple of years, and I mean really in
the last one hundred plus years, and where where we've
come from and where we are today. There's a dramatic
difference between twenty twenty two and seventeen seventy five and
what Americans are willing to accept in seventeen seventy five
and what we're willing to accept today. If the founding
(03:49):
generation were dropped in twenty twenty two, they'd look at
all of us and say, what are you doing. You know,
we were willing to do far more for far less
than what you're willing to suffer through now. And so
it's a really important history lesson to get all of
this right, because if Americans really knew the story of independence,
I think they would be looking at things today dramatically different.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Well, and what's interesting is I was listening to your podcast.
It's really good. People should go take a look, subscribe
the Brian McClanahan show. You sort of challenge a lot
of groupthink orthodoxy that you know, a lot of people
say a lot of points about history that may or
may not be true that we've been taught incorrectly as well.
But so you use founding generation instead of just talking
(04:30):
about the founding fathers. Why do you make that distinction?
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Well, because if you just say to founding fathers, people
think it's the fifty five men who drafted the Constitution,
or it's maybe six people. I mean, I've called them
the Big six. You know, it's Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin.
And of course that's incorrect. You had an entire generation
of Americans through thirteen states that were interested in these
(04:54):
principles that we all think about today, independence, liberty, all
these things. And so when you talk about the Constitution,
for example, the Constitution wasn't ratified by fifty five guys.
It was ratified by thirteen states, and you had a
large public discussion about what that meant. And so there's
a lot of people in that generation of founders that
(05:14):
we wouldn't recognize. For example, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, who
was so important in that period of time, but nobody
knows who he is. Or even people that you might
recognize their name, like George Mason or Virginia, but you
don't really know much about him, so or John Dickinson
of Pennsylvania. And this is a bigger issue than just
a few guys sitting in Philadelphia in seventeen eighty seven,
(05:35):
or even just the delegates to the Continental Congress in
seventeen seventy six. There's so much more to this, and
I think we need to be comprehensive. And when we
talk about this generation of people, there was a variety
of viewpoints, but at the end of the day, they
were all committed to one particular principle, and that was
a limited central authority. And when they're talking about the
British and the relationship between the British and the American colonies,
(05:58):
and of course that would translate later in to the
Constitution and the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration. So
they're all committed to that and also to that principle
of independence, and I think that's something we often forget.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
How much of what we are taught about history is
actually true.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Well, that's a big question when you think about the
Founding period. There's a lot that people get right, even
the leftist historians or things they get right. But I
would say that the real problem in America with teaching
history is politicizing everything. You know, if we're talking about
(06:33):
the eighteenth century, it has to be political. And what
I mean by that is these people have to be
twenty first century Americans. If they're not, then we're just
going to discard them. And this is the entire agenda,
going after people like Washington and Jefferson now for things
that they did that we don't do today, or views
that they held that we don't hold today. But that's
the real problem. It's saying, Okay, well Washington's a great man.
(06:56):
Well wait a second, because he owned slaves, he's not
really that great of a man. Or Jefferson's a great man.
We'll wait a second because he owned slaves and he's
not a great man so, or because he held views
on race that we don't hold today. So this is
the real issue. It's not that we're taught things incorrectly.
It's that everything is politicized and has an agenda behind
all of it. So instead of just using history as
(07:18):
a point, we can say, well, these people were great,
let's look at what they said, and we know that
they do things or say things and we don't necessarily
agree with today. But what do they offer us for
Americans in the twenty first century. We have to discard
them because they are not twenty first century Americans. And
that's called presentism. And I think that's the real issue
with historical profession.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
That makes a lot of sense, a ton of sense. Actually,
you know, before we kind of get into abbreviated TikTok
of what led up to the Declaration of Independence, what
do we typically get wrong about the American Revolution?
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Well, I think one of the most important things is
that it was simply about taxation, and of course that's
and that was an issue. But the real core issue
leading into independence was this idea that somehow the the
parliament could legislate for the colonies in all cases whatsoever.
That's what Tom Payne said in the American Crisis. That
was the issue. They were certainly willing to concede that
parliament could regulate international trade or defend the colonies. But
(08:12):
what they didn't want Parliament doing was going in and saying, Okay,
these are the taxes you have to have, and this
is the currency you have to use. These are the
things you have to do in the colonies. Because of
course the colonies had their own legislatures and the parliament.
There was no representation in Parliament for these colonies. So
there was a violation of the ancient rights of Englishmen.
So Patrick Henry talked about and it was this idea
(08:33):
that somehow Parliament had supremacy over these colonies when they
simply didn't have any role in that parliament. So when
we simplify this period of time, we're make it into
about lofty rights that were fabricated out of thin air.
You know this that we do today, the proposition nation equality,
these kind of things. I mean, they certainly talked about
that stuff, but at the core, it was simply about
(08:55):
making sure that they could govern themselves, and they were
firmly committed to the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights.
It was an Anglo American tradition they were fighting for.
So I think that's the major misconception that it was
just a simple no taxation, we don't want to be taxed,
or you know, we're willing to fight for some some
(09:15):
other kind of principle that you know, it's something in
the air that just doesn't make any sense. It was
certainly a commitment to this idea of local self government
that they were more concerned about than anything else.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
Well, and to that point, did it start with the
Stamp Act, because I know you had the Sugar Act
the year before, I believe, But the Stamp Act I
believe was a tax on items within the colonies, which
to your point was sort of this government interference from
a government far away that they did not have representation,
they did not have input. Was that sort of the
turning point? And when that relationship changed and the role
(09:47):
of government changed within these colonies?
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Well, yeah, absolutely. I mean you point out the Sugar
Act the year before seventeen sixty four, but by seventeen
sixty five, you know, when the colony when the Parliament
passes the Stamp Act and the colonies were react to
that in the way they did. It was exactly what
you said, Well, you know what, you're not going to
a tax us internally when that's breaking over one hundred
years of precedent. I mean, you go back to the
era of Salu tarn neglectus what is called the parliament
(10:13):
let the colonies alone, they could govern themselves, and so
that developed a system in their mind, a precedent for governance.
And so when the Stamppack comes about, the colonial legislatures say,
you know, we're just not going to this. This is unconstitutional.
And of course the resistance was what we would call
today nullification. They actually used it that that was born
(10:35):
out of it. We're just not going to enforce the
stamp Act, and we're going to tell our courts not
to enforce. We're not going to have anybody charged with
breaking the Stamppack. So the resistance was, Okay, you can
pass a law in parliament, we're just not going to
enforce it here in the colonies. And you saw this
across what became the United States. It wasn't just you know,
Massachusetts or but it was in Virginia. There was there
(10:55):
was certainly resistance in every colony to this Stampack. And
that's because they viewed it as an unconstitutional measure. And
think about all the things we have today that are unconstitutional,
wile people just live with it. Okay, yeah, fine, they
can pass it. We'll just go along with it. But
that would not be the founding response to it.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Or you know, you look at COVID, it's not even law.
You just have executive order dictating how we live our
lives or shutting businesses down. That people have put everything
into their whole livelihoods, their ability to feed their kids
without a blink of the eye. But then, you know,
but you can ride in the street that first Amendment
right is you know, worthy, but not going to church.
So yeah, so I think a lot of people can
sort of sympathize with that. So to be clear, you know,
(11:33):
before sort of you know, like the Stamp Act, and
you know, there's a bunch of different actions and provocations
that the British government takes against the colonists. But so
there was really sort of a system of self governance
to a certain degree, even though they're part of the
British government. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Absolutely? I mean, every colony had its own legislature. In fact,
the first legislature in North America was established in the sixth
nineteen in Virginia. That's the other sixteen nineteen right, we
have the sixteen nineteen project. But the real importance of
sixteen nineteen was that first legislature in Virginia elected legislature,
and so you had local government here, and I think
(12:13):
that's what we miss now. Of course, every colony by
the eighteenth century had a governor, a royal governor that
was appointed by the crown. But still these colonies had
the ability to legislate for themselves. And they were very
upset about the fact that you had Parliament stepping in
and saying, okay, well, you know, we spent all this
money on defending you during the during the French and
(12:36):
Indian War, and so now you're going to pay for that,
and we're going to tell you how you're going to
pay for it. And so this was the issue. It
was legislating for them in all cases whatsoever. And Tompaign
called it tyranny. He said, that's it. If we can't
legislate for ourselves, if we can't dictate what kind of
legislation we'll accept for ourselves. And there's no other definition
(12:56):
but tyranny than that. And so when you look back
at this period, it was and you talked about COVID
and everything else, I mean, again, we're willing to suffer
for in the United States today for far, you know,
far more than what the founding generation was. I mean,
they were not happy about a small tax that was
being levied against them against their will, and they were
(13:18):
willing to declare their independence over it. And how much
are we willing to accept today?
Speaker 1 (13:22):
How much of a leitism sort of came into play,
Like even though like George Washington was read, she's not
a British noble, right, he probably still felt like they
were thumbing their nose at him, looking down upon him.
How much of that sort of had to play in here.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Well, that's a good question when you think about the
leadership and the colonies. If you just use Virginia as example,
I mean a lot of these people believe they were
in so many ways kind of a part of this
old gentrification system in Great Britain. I mean, you have
the distressed cavaliers that came out to Virginia and they
(13:56):
established plantations. But certainly there was an anti monarcharal stance
in America. I wouldn't say it was dramatically democratic the
way we think of it today, but they were certainly
more democratic than which you would find in Great Britain
as far as the elitist position, I mean, they certainly
didn't care for the for the hereditary monarchy. They at
(14:17):
least a portion of the founding generation they didn't. They
didn't care for it. There were those, of course did
I mean, there were there were Tories in America, so
they were certainly fine with the monarchy. But those that
were interested independence, I mean that attack on the king
or this hereditary system was something they didn't like. And
this is why when there was an executive proposed in
Philadelphia in seventeen eighty seven, they all sat in sun
(14:38):
Stylus for a minute and they said, you know what,
my gosh, this is we're going to get a king
and we didn't want that. And so when you look
at the arts of Articles of Confederation, there's no monarchy
in that, there's no executive. So that was something they
were certainly concerned about, and that elite I don't know
if it was necessary elitism, but they certainly didn't like
the hereditary monarchical system to a great extent.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Quick commercial break back with doctor Brian McLanahan on the
other side, talk about sort of like the provocations, these
acts where that revolutionary spirit just started to build up.
You know, we talked about the Stamp Back, you talked
about the Sugar Act. You know, you got the Tact,
the Township Acts, all these different things, you know, talk
about sort of that build up and that increase just
(15:21):
frustration with the heavy hand of you know, the British
government kind of you know, putting it down on their necks.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Sure well, I mean if you, if you one of
my favorite characters in all that is Sam Adams, because
Sam Adams was the guy that we all know, this person.
They stand on the corner or nowadays it's on the
Internet and they say, you know, it's going to get bad.
It's going to get worse. Just wait, it's going to
get worse. It doesn't matter what's going on this things
are going to get worse. Just wait and see, just
watch take my word for it. And so if you
look at seventeen sixty five and the Stamp Act and
(15:51):
the response to that, it actually worked. I mean, the
colonists figured out that if they could go after the
British and the Parliament in their wallet, it was going
to help. And so the response was either nullification or
non importation. They set up ways to hurt the empire economically.
But of course by seventeen sixty seven the Parliament is
doubling down, and then by seventeen seventy you see things
(16:15):
get pretty bad, right. I mean, it's you have your
five years away from the ultimate break. But you had
a period of law between seventeen seventy and seventeen seventy
two when there wasn't a whole lot going on. But
by seventeen seventy three, again you see these bills by
parliament ramping up. And this is the North Parliament. I mean,
they certainly believed that the colonies were their subjects and
(16:37):
they needed to be to pay their fair share and
do what the Parliament told them. And you know, you
look at things like the Intollible Acts, which eventually came
about because of the T Act and the response to that.
One thing we miss about the TA Act, by the way,
let me just say this is that it wasn't really
a tax on tea that the colonists were concerned about.
It was establishing a monopoly only certain partners could trade
(16:59):
that bridge Cindia t And so they thought that was
a violation of good economic sense. And of course the
creating a royal monopoly in the colonies, and so that's
why they resisted it. But when you look at the
intitible aximy shutting down the Massachusetts government saying that you're
going to be essentially part of Canada, which at that
time was where they're where they're linking them in. That
(17:20):
was Catholic, and so you had this religious resistance there
as well. But that was the real issue. It was
taking away those colonial charters essentially and saying you're going
to be under us, directly under our thumb. That was
the point when I think everyone realized, Okay, this is
going to get really bad, and if we're willing to
accept this now, there's no turning back. I mean, they're
(17:42):
going to say to us that they can abolish our legislatures.
They can they can do whatever they want to us.
You had in Virginia right that the Groyl governor shut
down the legislature of the House of Burgesses, and so
they went and met in the tavern and said, Okay,
we're going to beat in Raleigh tavern. We're going to
legislate anyways, because you can't annihilate our legislature. So that
was the real point when you have these intitable acts,
(18:04):
even though they were directed only at Massachusetts, the other
colonies reacted to it and saying, well, if it's going
to happen there, it's going to happen here. And of
course Sam Adams has proven correct. He said, just wait,
this is all going to get bad and eventually, and
eventually it did.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Well, I've got a lot of people saying that about
where we are today too, but we'll get to that
in a little bit. You know, how important were things
like the Boston Tea Party, obviously a massive fu to
the British government and just spurring that public sentiment of
rolling people up to being like, you know what it's on, right?
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I mean, the Boston Tea Party in terms of propaganda
was very important. You had, of course Paul Revere and
you know, involved in creating images of this thing. But
when you look at the actual massacre itself, the term massacre,
I mean it was it was it wasn't really a
massacre with the loss of life, but the the the
(18:57):
way that they could sell this to the public was
and of course the colonists were somewhat responsible for this.
I mean, they were harassing the British soldiers or throwing
ice at him, and there was a lot of question
about whether you know, there was even an order given
to fire by the British or if this was somebody
staying in the shadows yelling fire. Of course, there's also
a fire and actual physical fire in Boston at that point,
(19:18):
and so maybe somebody got a little itchy trigger finger
and they fired. But the important part about it too
was the response by John Adams, who thought that these
soldiers needed a fair trial because if they didn't get
a fair trial, then the Parliament could look at him
and say, well, I mean we're gonna we're gonna ship
you back over to London to stand trial, so for
anything else. So he wanted to ensure that these soldiers
(19:40):
got a fair trial, and they did. He actually was
able to get several of them acquitted. So that response
to is interesting. Adams did that to a great expense
of his of his career, at least at that point,
but in terms of propaganda it's huge because now you
have dead people in the streets, and there were other
there was another event in New York City where you
had a similar kind of you know, riot. There was
some there was some bloodshed, there too, so that I
(20:03):
mean that part of that period of time, that little
bit of violence. But again things calmed down after that
for a couple of years, and then it was it
ramped back up again leading into seventeen seventy five.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
Well, and you also had, you know, other public acts
of rebellion like the Boston Tea Party as well.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Absolutely, I mean the Boston tea There are many tea parties.
That's that's a fun part of this too. The Boston
Tea Party where and the most conspicuous where they threw
the tea into the harbor. But you actually had tea
parties in Maryland. You had so you had one there
where the citizens of Maryland took all the tea off
the ship and then burned it. And of course the
(20:40):
funny thing about that is they sold it, right, They
didn't just throw it in the harbor. They took it
and they sold it and they used the money to
finance their activities against the crown. So that was the
more wise thing to do than just throwing it in
the harbor. But this, the response of the to the
Tea Act was not just in Boston. It was it
was again across the colony. So these public resistance to
these unco constitution or in toable acts was something very
(21:03):
important in leading up to the war. And again when
we think about today, we had the Tea Party movement
for a little while and people you can thrown little
tea bags into the water. I mean, that's that's funny.
But I don't know if Americans are as committed today
as as the founding generation was a standing up for
things that they considered to be their liberties. If but
(21:23):
I am encouraged by what happened with COVID and people
finally saying enough, we're just not going to wear the masks.
We're not going to do this. We're not gonna We're
not going to abide by your stupid edicts. These things
are illegal, they're unconstitutional. I think that's that was encouraging,
And also the response from various states and saying, you know,
federal government, you're really want to have this power. We're
going to do what we want to do. In you know, Florida,
(21:43):
for example, Ironda Stantis. So that was the spirit of independence,
and I think that's something again that's lacking throughout most
of America, but it is still there in many parts
of the United States, and that's a good thing to see.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
And also I think Onmacron helped too, because basically all
these people who think they thought they could hide in
their basements for two years got COVID and then they're like, Okay,
well I don't care anymore. It's sort of like deprogrammed
these crazy people.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
So right, as more and more people got it and
they figured out it was a bad cold, and of course,
you know, you can't minimize it. Initially it was. It
was pretty rough on a lot of people, and a
lot of elderly people in particular. But you know, our
response to it, the government's response to it was very
much a British type response initially, and I think that's
that's something we miss in all this, and of course
(22:28):
not everyone did, but it's a yeah, you're right. As
people started seeing this is not something that we should fear,
and they got back in and so forget it. We're
just going to live our lives. And I think that
was another great part of the sole thing at the
end of the day.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
But to your point, you know, thank god for people
like Governor DeSantis fighting against the federal government and saying
we're just not going to do this year, this makes
no sense, and having the guts and you know, the
fortitude to do that. So you know, you got the
Continental Congress starts meeting in seventeen seventy four, and then
we've got the declaration, the signing of the Declaration Dependence
(23:00):
on July fourth, seventeen seventy six, ratified by the Second
Continental Congress. Between the first and then this second Continental Congress,
what sort of because my understanding is like the first
one that not everyone was really it was more of
just kind of like setting a message saying, look, this
is sort of what we want. It wasn't really at
that point of saying, you know, we're we're full throttle,
(23:21):
we're you know, we're all in on declaring independence. So
what kind of well, first of all, you know, correct
me if I'm wrong. Secondly, what sort of transpired between
that first one and then declaring independence? That sort of
just you know, for the people kind of hanging out,
hanging on the side saying I don't know, brought them
over the edge.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
Right, Well, you're exactly right about the first Continental Congress
and John Adams complained they weren't going to do anything,
and so you have they get together in Philadelphia and
they say, all right, well look, let's let's talk about
what's happening here. And then of course they did adopt
became the Suffol Resolves, which were, as I mentioned before,
a nullification process. We're going to nullify any unconstitutional life.
(24:00):
But they weren't willing to break at that point. And
I think that's because, I mean, as Patrick Henry point
pointed out, and has give me liberty to give me
death speech. I mean, this was this was something we
were more inclined to do. People are inclined to suffer.
Weoll EVAs are sufferable. I mean, so they were generally
willing to accept. American people were generally going to accept
(24:21):
these unconstitutional invasions while they could tolerate them. Right, So
this was something that I think in seventeen seventy four
they weren't so committed to independence. Yet certainly there were
people that were. I mean again, Patrick Henry Lady was
he considered Virginia independent much much earlier than this. I
mean this early a seventeen sixty five, but in Sam Adams.
(24:43):
But I think for the most part you had in
the founding generation they were still willing to put the
brakes On, and I think the real change came when
the king rejected their pleas for an olive branch. This
was John Dickinson. He writes the olive branch petition, and
of course George the Third gets this. At the same
time he gets some male intercepted mail where John Adams says, well,
(25:04):
nobody really believes this thing anyways, and so George was
not willing at that point to accept any type of compromise.
And then, of course you get seventeen seventy five and
you get the invasion of Lexington and Concord, and I
think that's what really turned people around. They said, okay, well,
if they're going to actually march in and try to
seize our arms, which is what they were doing, that
(25:25):
was the point that there's no turning back. And so
you get that was almost a year before the declaration,
so by seventeen seventy six it was it was a
full break. And you still even have people Dickinson wasn't
going to support independence. Even in seventeen seventy six, you
still have people that weren't on board with it yet.
But in realizing that, I think most people realize when
(25:48):
there was an armed conflict in Massachusetts, and then of
course you had other events before seventeen before the declaration
as well. This was it. We can't turn back, we
can't say oop, sorry, we're going to We're just going
to say we're going to stay in the empire. There
was no way that was going to happen because the
Parliament was going to do everything they could to force
the colonies to bend to their will, and the king
(26:10):
was not going to support them. And so I think
they believed by that point they really had no choice
by seventeen seventy six except independence.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
So like for the folks like Dickerson that you just mentioned,
was it loyalty? Was it fear? Sort of what was
holding them back from, you know, being completely on board.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
With a well, I think it was a mix of both.
I mean John Dickinson was a very wealthy man in Delaware,
in Pennsylvania. He had he had a number of houses,
of course, all of which were burned except his plantation
in Delaware. And they were they were loyal to the crowd.
I mean, this is it'd be no different than any
of us sitting here today and saying my gosh, I
mean that would be a big decision for any of us,
(26:46):
do we want independence? We've been American citizens for all
these years, however old you are, and we've we've been
you know, pro United States for all this time. And
that's a big decision for people to make, and it's
not one to be taken lightly. And I think that
was the issue for many of them. They weren't certain
if they wanted that to take that step, And of
(27:07):
course there was some fear too. They knew that if
they signed their name to that declaration or voted for it,
that could be construed as treason, and so that way
you could forfeit your life and your property in that case.
So this is a big decision to make, and it's
we take this now very light law. We have July fourth,
and everyone shoots off fireworks, we have hot dogs and
ball games. But when that decision was made in Philadelphia
(27:30):
on July second, in fact, and they sat there and
stunned silence. Do we really just do this? Did all
of these people just vote by state for independence? And
there was not a big cheer and this is going
to be a big party. This was, oh my gosh,
what did we just do? And it was a heavy
decision for all the reasons you mentioned, but I think
(27:53):
that they realized the gravity of the situation and what
was going to happen and what could potentially happen if
they lost that pushbur independence.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
Of course, it's really heady what they just did, right,
I mean, I mean they're declaring war. I mean, they're
they're they're going to go to war. They're they're sending
their family members, their neighbors, the people they love to war.
I mean, that's a huge, huge thing.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Absolutely, it's not something to take lightly. And and you know,
when you look at the costs. When they when they
said in the declaration they pledge their lives, their fortunes,
and their sacred honor to this, they really meant it.
I think that's not something that we can we can
just flippantly disregard. So many men sacrificed everything for that.
And you know, I often often talked about the Minutemen.
You know, they're in Massachusetts at Lexington and Concord. Imagine
(28:35):
you're in your you're in your bed, it's middle of
the night, and you hear a rider coming down the
road and the regulars are coming out and you have
to get up, grab your grab your musket and head
out the door to go confront the regulars of the
British army, which is one of the best armies in
the world. I mean, maybe only the French were better.
It's it's it's questionable. At that point, they're both about
(28:56):
the same. So here you are a militiaman fighting against
a regular army, and that's something we don't really think about.
These men were not trained to be soldiers like the British.
And so when you think about the Battle of Bunker
Hill and and the the casualties that these militia inflicted
on the on the regulars there. But then you move
(29:16):
forward in time to the Battle of Long Island and
how the British and the Hessians just annihilated the American forces,
and what Washington had to he was crying, he was
weeping as he's watching his men just get plowed over
by the British. And I mean, this is this is
really difficult, a really difficult time, and a really difficult
time for for a lot of people, and a hard
decision to make. And so I don't think we can
(29:38):
ever say enough about these men who were willing to,
you know, walk in knee deep snow at the at
the at the Battle of Trenton to cross the Delaware
River and all the things, all the deprivations and Valley
Forge and in the South where you know, you had
and Charleston patriots executed by the British just because they
supported the cause. And I mean, this is this is
(30:00):
really hard stuff. And so this was not something that
these people took lightly, and we should we should really
celebrate them for this if we really valued independence.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
Do you think they would have won if France hadn't
gotten involved.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Probably not. The French breaking the blockade and and of
course sending in some reinforcements there in late in the
war was certainly beneficial. And you know, Yorktown would not
have happened without the French. So I don't think that
there's any way the United States can win without it.
And of course they you know, they knew that. I
(30:35):
think they knew that if they didn't get some type
of international support, this war was going to be over
and they were going to lose. And all of these
men who signed a declaration, We're going to go down
as traders, and we would be looking an entirely different situation,
and we wouldn't have the United States today. So the
French were valuable, and of course what did they get
out of it, Just a whole bunch of debt and
in their own revolutions. So the byproduct for the French,
(30:57):
the aftermath of the French was not what I think
they wanted, But of course it's what we wanted at
the end of the day.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
Well, and obviously, you know, we celebrate Independence Day, we
celebrate that Declaration of Independence. You know, what is the
significance of it from your perspective as a historian.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Well, for me, it's the last paragraph. Everyone focuses on
the second in the you know, the line, all men
we hold these streets of weself evident, all men are
created equal. But for me, it's the last paragraph, which
declared that these were free and independent states, because that
sets the basis for the entire structure of the American
government from that point forward. You think about the Articles
of Confederation, well, you had they said it states were independent.
(31:36):
Even when you get to the Constitution, the way it
was sold to the states was that we have a
federal republic, and these states still have powers, all the
powers not delegated to the center. And so we have
this reserved powers idea that comes out of the Declaration.
And you have to understand Jefferson, and the Declaration called
Great Britain a state, and so it was the state
of Great Britain, and you had thirteen independent states, and
(32:00):
state could do all the acts and things which independent
states may have right to. And he said it. And
so you had thirteen countries that were unified in their
opposition to British and we come together in a federal
union that was basically modeled after what they were living
under before. Right, the central authority could regulate commerce and defense,
international commerce and defense, and then with the Constitution commerce
(32:22):
between the states, and that was it. I mean, everything
else is left to the states. All the things that
we talk about today that we wring our hands over
are really state issues at the end of the day.
And the problem is that we have people focus so
much on the center and we need one size fits
all government for everything. And that's again that's legislating for
us in all cases whatsoever. That's not what the founding
generation would have wanted. So for me, it's that principle
(32:45):
and that last paragraph that really matters moving forward in
American government.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Do you think that will happen naturally after COVID. I mean,
for instance, I left New York City because I wanted
to live freely as an American and move to Florida
for that very purpose. And we've I've seen a lot
of this migration. Red states are getting redd like Florida's
officially a red state when you look at registered Republicans
in the state. Do you think that separation is sort
(33:09):
of underway in a way that it hasn't been recently.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Yeah, absolutely, I think COVID did a lot to do that.
People are you know, I have people listeners all the
time on my show because this is the theme of
the show is think locally, act locally, right, instead of
think globally, act locally. You got to think locally in
act locally so you can change your life at the
local level. And it's it's something that people don't realize.
And you look at protests as the Supreme Court now
(33:33):
and if you whatever your position on those are, and
I know we're talking to conservatives, so it's people would
laugh at these protesters, But what kind of impact do
you think five ten people are going to have in
the Supreme Court steps? But if they went to their
state capital, that would be larger impact. Or if they
went to their if they went to their city council,
it'd be a larger impact. And so when we start
talking about this idea of decentralization and how important Rhonda
(33:57):
Santis is for the future of Florida, I think I
hope he stays governor of Florida. And I know that
people want to be president, but we need fifty Ronda Santansis.
That's what we really need, and that would make it
to where Joe Biden would virtually be irrelevant if we
had states that actually stood up and said, you know what,
you only have these powers and we're not going to
(34:18):
let you have any others. The government really doesn't have
the central government to really doesn't have the ability to
enforce all the things that they do, and people recognize
that in the nineteenth century, it's the idea of non commandeering.
They can pass all the legislation they want, but they
don't have the resources to enforce all this stuff. The
states are going to have to do it all. So
if the states say forget it, we're just not doing it,
it changes the whole ballgame. And so I think people
(34:39):
are waking up to this, you know, and with the
mass mandates and all these other things that happened during COVID,
and the governor's saying, we're just not We're going to
keep our state open. We're just not going to do
those things. You can have whatever you want in California.
You can have whatever you want in Massachusetts or New York.
But we're going to do what we want to do
in Florida or Alabama or Montana or wherever it was.
(35:00):
We're going to take things differently. And so again that
spirit of this resistance to unconstitutional government, I think is
starting to manifest itself a little better, and people are
voting with their feet. As you said, you go into different states.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
Quick break more on the founding generation on the other side,
fast forward to the Constitution so ratified in seventeen eda,
in operation since seventeen eighty nine. So Democrats like to
say we have democracy, Republicans say we have a constitutional republic.
Why does that distinction matter? And sort of what do
(35:34):
you make of that debate that is always happening in
our country.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
Well, I mean the term democracy is a loaded term.
What kind of democracy? Do we have a representative democracy?
Do we have a direct democracy. I mean, what do
we really have. The founding generation was committed to democracy,
but it was always with a check, right. They didn't
really trust mass popular democracy because they didn't think that
people had enough information or were well educated enough to
(35:58):
make these decisions, oftentimes us. Why you see in the
Constitution itself, there's only one really democratic part of the Constitution,
and that is the House of Representatives. Otherwise, the Senate
was designed to be the state check on the entire system.
The States chose the senators, and of course through the
legislatures themselves, but the states did that originally. And then
of course the president is elected by the electoral college,
(36:20):
not direct vote. You've got the federal court system, which
is all appointed. So there's a whole lot of anti
democratic stuff in the Constitution because they just didn't really
believe that majoritarian rule was always the best thing. And
they even said it. After the Constitution was written and
it was going through ratification, there was a lot of
discussion about democracy and how this was going to be
(36:40):
a check on rampant democracy. They thought democracy was ruining
the states. They thought it was the bane of good government.
So these distinctions to make you know, we don't have it.
We don't have a democracy, but I think the best
term is a federal republic with representative government, not direct democracy.
And there were others that were concerned about what majoritarian
(37:02):
rule could do. Right, if it's fifty people here, one
hundred people or one hundred and one people, and fifty
one people get to rule the other fifty, is that
really good government? Or is that tyranny? I mean, because
those fifty people can be abused by fifty one people,
and that's I mean, we don't really think about these
things nowadays, but certainly they did. They understood that you
could have a bad government even with democracy, and so
(37:23):
you had to have some checks on that, which.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
Is why we have things like the electoral college exactly right.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
I mean it's the electoral college kept the states in
the system. It allowed for another layer from the popular vote.
We didn't count the popular vote until until the eighteen twenties, right,
I mean, no, we even knew what it was. It
didn't matter. It only mattered what the electoral college voted.
And that was certainly there to ensure that there was
(37:48):
some more educated person, so to speak, making a decision
about who is going to be president. In the United States.
But if the presidency was actually we here to that
the way it was actually designed, the president would almost
be irrelevant here for foreign policy to receive ambassadors, to
make appointments, to make recommendations. But Congress had all the power,
and that's something that Congress wants to hide. Today. We
(38:11):
have executive government because Congress allows it to happen. So
you need to be talking about Congress and what Congress
needs to do and take their own power back from
the executive. It's very difficult to do, but it's something
that I think needs to be done in the future.
Moving forward.
Speaker 1 (38:25):
Now that makes a ton of sense. You know, we're
talking about the founding generation, and we've sort of touched
on it throughout the conversation, but just get into how
far are we today from what America was supposed to be.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
I think almost one hundred and eighty degrees when you
look at seventeen eighty nine, when the US Congress meets
for the first time and we have the Constitution and
the way that was sold to the states. I use
that term because it was a ratification process where they
actually had to sell this thing. We had this new constitution.
Not everyone was on board. Where we're going to do.
How's this thing going to work? And the opponents of
the document we're talking about we're going to have a
(39:01):
government that was going to be oppressive, it was going
to abuse the states, it was going to do all
kinds of one of legal things what ultimately would be
illegal things. And those who supported the proponents of the
document insisted, no, well just look and you can only
do these things and then everything else is left to
the state. So if you just take that ratification process
and then look at where we are and everything is centralized,
(39:21):
everything is Washington, DC, everything, all the things the general
government does that are completely unconstitutional, I think they would
be the opponents would feel like they're vindicated, Well, we
told you so, and the proponents would have, you know,
egg on their face because this is not the constitution
that they sold during the ratification process, but it's what
(39:44):
we ultimately got. And so I think that the so
called anti federalists were prescient in what was going to happen.
And I mean, we are not anywhere near what was
sold to the states in seventeen eighty seven and seventeen
eighty eight.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Well, I think one thing that the Trump administration really
opened a lot. I mean, I guess we saw it
a little bit during the Obama administration with like the
IRS targeting conservatives and things of that nature, or just
like spying on the Senate Intel Committee and reporters and
the things like that. But we really saw it come
to a head during the Trump administration sort of this
administrative state, this deep state, these bureaucrats sort of subverting
the will of the American people. How do you scale
(40:20):
back government at this point? Is is it too late
when you look at something like that.
Speaker 2 (40:25):
Well, I mean, the set, I don't think you can
reform Washington DC, but again there's certainly cracks and what
it can do. And you can even look at things
the left does, for example, sanctuary cities, which is something
that when we talk about immigration, a lot of these
sanctuary city laws written in the nineteen eighties, and it was,
you know what we're going to do here. We're not
going to enforce the federal government coming in and rounding
(40:48):
up aliens. They can come in all they want and
do it, but we're just not going to use state
resources or local resources to do it. And you know
what happened. They didn't have the resources to go do it,
and so they just the state just said we're just
not going to do these things. And I think that
is the key moving forward. We have to think about
bottom up, not top down. Washington is lost. It doesn't
(41:08):
matter if we elect Ronda Santis or Donald Trump or
take your pick of Republican. It doesn't matter if the
Republicans control Congress, because we know that they don't overdo
I mean, look, they're impotent oftentimes, and what they even,
they don't follow through on anything they say they're going
to do most of the time. So reforming Washington DC
is lost. But you can look at Ronda Santis and everything.
(41:31):
I mean, if you're in Florida right now, which you
say you're in Florida, he's doing amazing things there and
pushing back against the cancel culture in the culture War
and everything else. It's amazing what Ronda Santis is doing.
And so that is the key moving forward. I think
if we want to take things back in America, if
we want to make America great again, it has to
(41:52):
come from the bottom up. That's the only way it's
going to happen. And the states have all the authority
and all the power to do it. It's just a
matter if they're willing.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
To do it. Well, And to your point about Governor Desanta's,
I mean, it's not only our own government, like and
people within it trying to subvert the will of the
American people. We also now corporations that have come to
the party who are sort of aligning themselves with d
C and enforcing their will on you know, Americans and
enforcing like the governments will on Americans. You know, how
do you sort of what's your take on that? Like
(42:20):
we saw the recent fight with Disney and things of
that nature, big tech, you know, all these different things.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
Well, again, I think the states can regulate that kind
of thing. You know, the Santas is going after Disney. Well, okay,
if you want all these state kickbacks, well then you
have to do you have to tow the line. And
corporations the idea of a corporate person I mean that
corporate personhood is the problem there. But the other thing
average Americans can do. Of course, if you don't like
what Coca Cola or Disney or you know, the NFL
(42:46):
or what take your pick of some corporation you don't
like was doing, we'll just stop buying their products. This
is exactly what the founding generation. They were just going
to boycott your stuff, And the left does this pretty
effectively at times. Conservatives tend not to follow through where
they get ticked off for a little while and then
they just keep going what they're doing. But that economic bustle,
I think is something that needs to be said and
(43:08):
it needs to be done. We saw it with with
Disney here in this new movie, the light Year movie.
Apparently it bombed the box office because people said, we're
just not going to tolerate this, and we're not going
to bring our kids to this. It's not something we
want to do. So there is a pushback that can
happen with finances if you really want to. And then
of course also the state's getting involved and saying, if
you want to incorporate in our state, then you're not
(43:31):
going to do X, Y and Z, and I think
that's also a key to reigning in some of these
corporations as well.
Speaker 1 (43:36):
You know, obviously there's a conversation happening in the country
right now about the Second Amendment. What's the role of
the Second Amendment in our amendment in our lives? A
lot of dispute about what the meaning of the Second
Amendment was with the purpose was from a historical perspective,
what was the purpose of the Second Amendment and does
that still hold true today?
Speaker 2 (43:53):
Well, of course, the purpose of the Second Amendment was
to ensure that the United States had a militia, right,
I mean, and so when you think about the Constitution,
it says very clearly in the Constitution without the Second Amendment,
that the central government can arm the militia. Well, of course,
the theory was that they could arm the militia, then
they could disarm the militia, and the militia was every
able body citizen between eighteen and forty five, and so
(44:16):
when there was a discussion of a Bill of rights,
it was okay, well, look if they we need to
ensure that they can't disarm us and make us impotent,
and so that the state can come in or the
central authority can come in and simply run rough shot
over us. So the states controlled the militia, and of
course the states controlled the essentially the arming of citizens.
(44:38):
And so now it's interesting about that when when the
First Congress met, they actually passed the militia Law that
established the fact that every male had to be armed,
they had to have a certain had to have a firearm,
they had a certain amount of powder, a certain amount
of ammunition. So they could arm the militia, but they
could not disarm them. And so the Second Amendment is
vital to our understanding of what an armed civilian population
(45:00):
is therefore, which is to prevent centralized tyranny. And I
think there's there's no other way around it. Certainly states
can do more than the central government can. But I've
always maintained any gun control legislation from the central authority
is illegal the states. There's a lot more wiggle room
there depending on the state constitutions. But certainly this is
something that the left is politicized again looking at things
(45:22):
from present status instead of thinking about it the way
that it's just a natural right to self defense.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
Well, and I mean the Battle of lexingon Concord, didn't
I mean they were coming for guns exactly right.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
I mean, that's they were. They were trying to disarm
the militia, and that was that was what was happening
in seventeen seventy five. So they were they had a
central armory there, and but that was the ide me.
You have those in the United States. Now you have
National Guard armory. So imagine the US government coming in
and saying we're going to take this away from you.
And of course the National Guard is a whole other monster,
(45:55):
and what that means is changing the nature of the
militia there. But this is what was happening in seventeen
seventy five. So the idea is, we're going to disarm
you and we're going to take away your firearms so
you cannot resist any of our unconstitutional laws. And I
think at the end of the day, that's something we
have to recognize and realize was one of the main
parts of this American War for independence.
Speaker 1 (46:15):
Well, and I think what's really important about this conversation
with you is I think, you know, look, I was
a little bit naive before COVID to be I mean,
I always saw that the government was a bad actor.
You know, we've seen numerous examples, and the government's pretty
much always lie to us our entire lives. But I
think for whatever reason, I still was naive to the
fact that tyranny could get reborn here in America, right
(46:35):
like we were somewhat immune to tyranny, despite you know,
Reagan and beautiful quotes that he's made about freedom being
one generation away from extinction and COVID just really opened
my eyes, and I think it opened a lot of
people's eyes to the fact that, like, tyranny is here,
the threat is real, and you know, we have to
fight for liberty in America.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
Absolutely. And I think if you look at when this
process really began was in the middle of the twentieth
century and basically the Truman administration, and we created this
deep state that we have, and at the end of
World War Two, we didn't demobilize. We just kept all
the programs in place from the New Deal and then
also everything that was used to fight the war, and
(47:15):
we've just kept that in place. And all of that
deep state apparatus and the creation of the politicized CIA
and a militarized CIA and the FBI and everything that
happens there, all of that is a byproduct of extreme
centralization during World War Two, and it's always been there.
It's just that people haven't really recognized that they've lived
(47:36):
their lives and they just think the FBI just hurts
everybody else, or the CIA hurts everybody else, or the
central government hurts everybody else but not me. But now
with COVID, they saw well, I mean, if they can
do these things of these people, they can do it
to us too. And so I think that's really where
this deep state apparatus was in place, and it was
there just to use, and we saw it during twenty
(47:58):
twenty and twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (48:00):
Man, I could honestly talk to you for hours. This
is one of the more fascinating conversations I've had. But
you know, in the interest of time, is there anything
else you'd like to leave us with before we go?
Speaker 2 (48:09):
Well, again, I think it's important to understand that the
the Founding Generation was committed to independence, committed to decentralization,
they were committed to local government, and they were committed
to running their own lives. And if we can do
any if we can live any way like the Founding Generation,
it would be that think locally, act locally. Idea. Make
sure you're going to your city council meetings, make sure
you're paying attention to your state legislatures. Make sure you're
(48:31):
paying attention to your governors. That's more important than anything else.
Vote in those local elections, get people in those local elections,
and in your we've seen you Texas GOP. Their platform
is now national news because they're thinking about decentralization. They're
thinking about what can the local do to ensure that
we have the liberties and freedoms we want in the
state of Texas. So this is important. It's you just
(48:54):
don't focus on Donald Trump or Joe Biden or whoever's
in Congress. Think about these people at the state and
local level, and get people on an office there. You
do it yourself that want to are committed and want
to pursue these ideas of independence and decentralization. That at
the end of the day is what we can type
away from the founding generation.
Speaker 1 (49:11):
Where can people find your work?
Speaker 2 (49:13):
You can go to Brian Theplanna Hand dot com is
bron Theplanning Hand dot com and you can find everything
that I do there, my podcast, my academy, all the
stuff that I do. So it's I appreciate any of
your listeners going out there and checking me out.
Speaker 1 (49:24):
Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time. This has been
fascinating and I think a really important conversation. So I
really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (49:29):
Well, thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (49:40):
So that was long though. I hope you guys at
home listen to that about the importance of independence, the
importance of liberty, what our founding generation believed, and why
we should still care about those principles today as we
celebrate Independence Day, as we go out and spend time
with friends and family. Liberty is the most important and
(50:02):
if we lose it, we lose our country. So I
really appreciated his time. I thought he was an amazing guest.
Definitely we'll have him back on the show for sure.
You guys should go check out his work. And thank
you all for listening at home. I really appreciate you
tuning in every Monday and Thursday to this show. Also
want to make my teammate, my producer, John Cassio, for
working so hard to bring this show to you and
(50:22):
for us. So thanks so much for listening. Guys. Happy
fourth of July, Happy Independence Day.
Well, first off, Happy Independence Day. I hope everyone is
having an amazing day. I hope you're spending time with
the people you love. I hope you're spending time with
your friends, your family. Maybe you're on a trip, maybe
you're just doing a staycation, or maybe even have to work.
But I hope it's a great day. Nonetheless, as we
celebrate Independence days, we celebrate America's independence from a monarchy,
(00:21):
we look today at what has really transpired over the
past few years, particularly during COVID and I talk about
this a lot on the show, but it was so
eye opening for me. I'm sure it was for a
lot of you guys at home. Of just tyranny is here? Right?
We're not immune to tyranny. Of course, we weren't back
when this nation was founded, but we're certainly not today.
And if you look back at the founding generation or
(00:42):
founding fathers, they didn't put up with it, right, They
weren't putting up with this oppressive regime from far away
trying to strangle their way of life, trying to impose
on their way of life, trying to dictate to them
their way of life. So why are we putting up
with it? Today, right, why are we putting up with
our government. I'm not saying we don't have to to,
obviously the tactics that are Founding Generation resorted to, but
(01:04):
there are other ways to fight back. There are other
ways to fight back, you know, locally, to fight back
against government, to fight back against tyranny, and to resist
a little bit. So today, what I want to do
is sort of revisit the foundations of America, Revisit our
founding fathers, revisit the Founding Generation. You know, why was
(01:25):
America born? You know what happened in the lead up
before the Decoration of Independence, you know what happened to
that lead up before July fourth, seventeen seventy six. So
we're going to get into that with a historian. His
name is doctor Bryan McClanahan. He has his own podcast,
The Brian McLanahan Show. You can check it out on Apple.
(01:46):
I listened to like five yesterday. It's super interesting. He
gets into a lot of real world issues, today's issues
from a historical perspective, and he just has really interesting
takes on it. He's a really smart guy. So he's
also the author and co author of six books. He's
written books like The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding
Fathers The Founding Father's Guide to the Constitution. He's a
(02:07):
faculty member at the tom Woods Liberty Classroom. He received
a bachelor's degree in history from Salisbury University, of masters
in history from the University of South Carolina, as well
as his PhD in history from the University of South Carolina.
It's just a really interesting guy. So today, on this
Independence Day, we're going to talk about individual liberty. We're
going to talk about freedom. We're going to talk about
(02:28):
the birth of America, why this country is special, why
this country needs to be preserved, and what we can
do to preserve it. So I hope you enjoyed this
fourth of July Independence Day Special with doctor Brian McLanahan.
(02:53):
Doctor Brian McLanahan, thanks so much for joining The Truth
with Lisa Booth. I appreciate your time.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
Well, thanks for having me on.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
I appreciate Itbviously, this is for the Independence Day Special.
You know, we've sort of seen a lot of narratives
that we believe to be true have been contradicted and
shown to not be true, and a lot of what
we thought we were insulated and immune from in America
like tyranny. We saw during COVID that we are actually not.
So I kind of wanted to revisit American history or
(03:20):
nation's foundings and sort of how far we've gone from
that beginning, and I thought you'd be the perfect person
for this episode.
Speaker 2 (03:27):
Well, I appreciate you having me on. Yes. I mean
it's when you look at what's happened in America over
the last couple of years, and I mean really in
the last one hundred plus years, and where where we've
come from and where we are today. There's a dramatic
difference between twenty twenty two and seventeen seventy five and
what Americans are willing to accept in seventeen seventy five
and what we're willing to accept today. If the founding
(03:49):
generation were dropped in twenty twenty two, they'd look at
all of us and say, what are you doing. You know,
we were willing to do far more for far less
than what you're willing to suffer through now. And so
it's a really important history lesson to get all of
this right, because if Americans really knew the story of independence,
I think they would be looking at things today dramatically different.
Speaker 1 (04:10):
Well, and what's interesting is I was listening to your podcast.
It's really good. People should go take a look, subscribe
the Brian McClanahan show. You sort of challenge a lot
of groupthink orthodoxy that you know, a lot of people
say a lot of points about history that may or
may not be true that we've been taught incorrectly as well.
But so you use founding generation instead of just talking
(04:30):
about the founding fathers. Why do you make that distinction?
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Well, because if you just say to founding fathers, people
think it's the fifty five men who drafted the Constitution,
or it's maybe six people. I mean, I've called them
the Big six. You know, it's Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin.
And of course that's incorrect. You had an entire generation
of Americans through thirteen states that were interested in these
(04:54):
principles that we all think about today, independence, liberty, all
these things. And so when you talk about the Constitution,
for example, the Constitution wasn't ratified by fifty five guys.
It was ratified by thirteen states, and you had a
large public discussion about what that meant. And so there's
a lot of people in that generation of founders that
(05:14):
we wouldn't recognize. For example, Roger Sherman of Connecticut, who
was so important in that period of time, but nobody
knows who he is. Or even people that you might
recognize their name, like George Mason or Virginia, but you
don't really know much about him, so or John Dickinson
of Pennsylvania. And this is a bigger issue than just
a few guys sitting in Philadelphia in seventeen eighty seven,
(05:35):
or even just the delegates to the Continental Congress in
seventeen seventy six. There's so much more to this, and
I think we need to be comprehensive. And when we
talk about this generation of people, there was a variety
of viewpoints, but at the end of the day, they
were all committed to one particular principle, and that was
a limited central authority. And when they're talking about the
British and the relationship between the British and the American colonies,
(05:58):
and of course that would translate later in to the
Constitution and the Articles of Confederation and the Declaration. So
they're all committed to that and also to that principle
of independence, and I think that's something we often forget.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
How much of what we are taught about history is
actually true.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Well, that's a big question when you think about the
Founding period. There's a lot that people get right, even
the leftist historians or things they get right. But I
would say that the real problem in America with teaching
history is politicizing everything. You know, if we're talking about
(06:33):
the eighteenth century, it has to be political. And what
I mean by that is these people have to be
twenty first century Americans. If they're not, then we're just
going to discard them. And this is the entire agenda,
going after people like Washington and Jefferson now for things
that they did that we don't do today, or views
that they held that we don't hold today. But that's
the real problem. It's saying, Okay, well Washington's a great man.
(06:56):
Well wait a second, because he owned slaves, he's not
really that great of a man. Or Jefferson's a great man.
We'll wait a second because he owned slaves and he's
not a great man so, or because he held views
on race that we don't hold today. So this is
the real issue. It's not that we're taught things incorrectly.
It's that everything is politicized and has an agenda behind
all of it. So instead of just using history as
(07:18):
a point, we can say, well, these people were great,
let's look at what they said, and we know that
they do things or say things and we don't necessarily
agree with today. But what do they offer us for
Americans in the twenty first century. We have to discard
them because they are not twenty first century Americans. And
that's called presentism. And I think that's the real issue
with historical profession.
Speaker 1 (07:37):
That makes a lot of sense, a ton of sense. Actually,
you know, before we kind of get into abbreviated TikTok
of what led up to the Declaration of Independence, what
do we typically get wrong about the American Revolution?
Speaker 2 (07:48):
Well, I think one of the most important things is
that it was simply about taxation, and of course that's
and that was an issue. But the real core issue
leading into independence was this idea that somehow the the
parliament could legislate for the colonies in all cases whatsoever.
That's what Tom Payne said in the American Crisis. That
was the issue. They were certainly willing to concede that
parliament could regulate international trade or defend the colonies. But
(08:12):
what they didn't want Parliament doing was going in and saying, Okay,
these are the taxes you have to have, and this
is the currency you have to use. These are the
things you have to do in the colonies. Because of
course the colonies had their own legislatures and the parliament.
There was no representation in Parliament for these colonies. So
there was a violation of the ancient rights of Englishmen.
So Patrick Henry talked about and it was this idea
(08:33):
that somehow Parliament had supremacy over these colonies when they
simply didn't have any role in that parliament. So when
we simplify this period of time, we're make it into
about lofty rights that were fabricated out of thin air.
You know this that we do today, the proposition nation equality,
these kind of things. I mean, they certainly talked about
that stuff, but at the core, it was simply about
(08:55):
making sure that they could govern themselves, and they were
firmly committed to the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights.
It was an Anglo American tradition they were fighting for.
So I think that's the major misconception that it was
just a simple no taxation, we don't want to be taxed,
or you know, we're willing to fight for some some
(09:15):
other kind of principle that you know, it's something in
the air that just doesn't make any sense. It was
certainly a commitment to this idea of local self government
that they were more concerned about than anything else.
Speaker 1 (09:26):
Well, and to that point, did it start with the
Stamp Act, because I know you had the Sugar Act
the year before, I believe, But the Stamp Act I
believe was a tax on items within the colonies, which
to your point was sort of this government interference from
a government far away that they did not have representation,
they did not have input. Was that sort of the
turning point? And when that relationship changed and the role
(09:47):
of government changed within these colonies?
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Well, yeah, absolutely. I mean you point out the Sugar
Act the year before seventeen sixty four, but by seventeen
sixty five, you know, when the colony when the Parliament
passes the Stamp Act and the colonies were react to
that in the way they did. It was exactly what
you said, Well, you know what, you're not going to
a tax us internally when that's breaking over one hundred
years of precedent. I mean, you go back to the
era of Salu tarn neglectus what is called the parliament
(10:13):
let the colonies alone, they could govern themselves, and so
that developed a system in their mind, a precedent for governance.
And so when the Stamppack comes about, the colonial legislatures say,
you know, we're just not going to this. This is unconstitutional.
And of course the resistance was what we would call
today nullification. They actually used it that that was born
(10:35):
out of it. We're just not going to enforce the
stamp Act, and we're going to tell our courts not
to enforce. We're not going to have anybody charged with
breaking the Stamppack. So the resistance was, Okay, you can
pass a law in parliament, we're just not going to
enforce it here in the colonies. And you saw this
across what became the United States. It wasn't just you know,
Massachusetts or but it was in Virginia. There was there
(10:55):
was certainly resistance in every colony to this Stampack. And
that's because they viewed it as an unconstitutional measure. And
think about all the things we have today that are unconstitutional,
wile people just live with it. Okay, yeah, fine, they
can pass it. We'll just go along with it. But
that would not be the founding response to it.
Speaker 1 (11:10):
Or you know, you look at COVID, it's not even law.
You just have executive order dictating how we live our
lives or shutting businesses down. That people have put everything
into their whole livelihoods, their ability to feed their kids
without a blink of the eye. But then, you know,
but you can ride in the street that first Amendment
right is you know, worthy, but not going to church.
So yeah, so I think a lot of people can
sort of sympathize with that. So to be clear, you know,
(11:33):
before sort of you know, like the Stamp Act, and
you know, there's a bunch of different actions and provocations
that the British government takes against the colonists. But so
there was really sort of a system of self governance
to a certain degree, even though they're part of the
British government. Is that correct?
Speaker 2 (11:51):
Absolutely? I mean, every colony had its own legislature. In fact,
the first legislature in North America was established in the sixth
nineteen in Virginia. That's the other sixteen nineteen right, we
have the sixteen nineteen project. But the real importance of
sixteen nineteen was that first legislature in Virginia elected legislature,
and so you had local government here, and I think
(12:13):
that's what we miss now. Of course, every colony by
the eighteenth century had a governor, a royal governor that
was appointed by the crown. But still these colonies had
the ability to legislate for themselves. And they were very
upset about the fact that you had Parliament stepping in
and saying, okay, well, you know, we spent all this
money on defending you during the during the French and
(12:36):
Indian War, and so now you're going to pay for that,
and we're going to tell you how you're going to
pay for it. And so this was the issue. It
was legislating for them in all cases whatsoever. And Tompaign
called it tyranny. He said, that's it. If we can't
legislate for ourselves, if we can't dictate what kind of
legislation we'll accept for ourselves. And there's no other definition
(12:56):
but tyranny than that. And so when you look back
at this period, it was and you talked about COVID
and everything else, I mean, again, we're willing to suffer
for in the United States today for far, you know,
far more than what the founding generation was. I mean,
they were not happy about a small tax that was
being levied against them against their will, and they were
(13:18):
willing to declare their independence over it. And how much
are we willing to accept today?
Speaker 1 (13:22):
How much of a leitism sort of came into play,
Like even though like George Washington was read, she's not
a British noble, right, he probably still felt like they
were thumbing their nose at him, looking down upon him.
How much of that sort of had to play in here.
Speaker 2 (13:34):
Well, that's a good question when you think about the
leadership and the colonies. If you just use Virginia as example,
I mean a lot of these people believe they were
in so many ways kind of a part of this
old gentrification system in Great Britain. I mean, you have
the distressed cavaliers that came out to Virginia and they
(13:56):
established plantations. But certainly there was an anti monarcharal stance
in America. I wouldn't say it was dramatically democratic the
way we think of it today, but they were certainly
more democratic than which you would find in Great Britain
as far as the elitist position, I mean, they certainly
didn't care for the for the hereditary monarchy. They at
(14:17):
least a portion of the founding generation they didn't. They
didn't care for it. There were those, of course did
I mean, there were there were Tories in America, so
they were certainly fine with the monarchy. But those that
were interested independence, I mean that attack on the king
or this hereditary system was something they didn't like. And
this is why when there was an executive proposed in
Philadelphia in seventeen eighty seven, they all sat in sun
(14:38):
Stylus for a minute and they said, you know what,
my gosh, this is we're going to get a king
and we didn't want that. And so when you look
at the arts of Articles of Confederation, there's no monarchy
in that, there's no executive. So that was something they
were certainly concerned about, and that elite I don't know
if it was necessary elitism, but they certainly didn't like
the hereditary monarchical system to a great extent.
Speaker 1 (15:00):
Quick commercial break back with doctor Brian McLanahan on the
other side, talk about sort of like the provocations, these
acts where that revolutionary spirit just started to build up.
You know, we talked about the Stamp Back, you talked
about the Sugar Act. You know, you got the Tact,
the Township Acts, all these different things, you know, talk
about sort of that build up and that increase just
(15:21):
frustration with the heavy hand of you know, the British
government kind of you know, putting it down on their necks.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
Sure well, I mean if you, if you one of
my favorite characters in all that is Sam Adams, because
Sam Adams was the guy that we all know, this person.
They stand on the corner or nowadays it's on the
Internet and they say, you know, it's going to get bad.
It's going to get worse. Just wait, it's going to
get worse. It doesn't matter what's going on this things
are going to get worse. Just wait and see, just
watch take my word for it. And so if you
look at seventeen sixty five and the Stamp Act and
(15:51):
the response to that, it actually worked. I mean, the
colonists figured out that if they could go after the
British and the Parliament in their wallet, it was going
to help. And so the response was either nullification or
non importation. They set up ways to hurt the empire economically.
But of course by seventeen sixty seven the Parliament is
doubling down, and then by seventeen seventy you see things
(16:15):
get pretty bad, right. I mean, it's you have your
five years away from the ultimate break. But you had
a period of law between seventeen seventy and seventeen seventy
two when there wasn't a whole lot going on. But
by seventeen seventy three, again you see these bills by
parliament ramping up. And this is the North Parliament. I mean,
they certainly believed that the colonies were their subjects and
(16:37):
they needed to be to pay their fair share and
do what the Parliament told them. And you know, you
look at things like the Intollible Acts, which eventually came
about because of the T Act and the response to that.
One thing we miss about the TA Act, by the way,
let me just say this is that it wasn't really
a tax on tea that the colonists were concerned about.
It was establishing a monopoly only certain partners could trade
(16:59):
that bridge Cindia t And so they thought that was
a violation of good economic sense. And of course the
creating a royal monopoly in the colonies, and so that's
why they resisted it. But when you look at the
intitible aximy shutting down the Massachusetts government saying that you're
going to be essentially part of Canada, which at that
time was where they're where they're linking them in. That
(17:20):
was Catholic, and so you had this religious resistance there
as well. But that was the real issue. It was
taking away those colonial charters essentially and saying you're going
to be under us, directly under our thumb. That was
the point when I think everyone realized, Okay, this is
going to get really bad, and if we're willing to
accept this now, there's no turning back. I mean, they're
(17:42):
going to say to us that they can abolish our legislatures.
They can they can do whatever they want to us.
You had in Virginia right that the Groyl governor shut
down the legislature of the House of Burgesses, and so
they went and met in the tavern and said, Okay,
we're going to beat in Raleigh tavern. We're going to
legislate anyways, because you can't annihilate our legislature. So that
was the real point when you have these intitable acts,
(18:04):
even though they were directed only at Massachusetts, the other
colonies reacted to it and saying, well, if it's going
to happen there, it's going to happen here. And of
course Sam Adams has proven correct. He said, just wait,
this is all going to get bad and eventually, and
eventually it did.
Speaker 1 (18:18):
Well, I've got a lot of people saying that about
where we are today too, but we'll get to that
in a little bit. You know, how important were things
like the Boston Tea Party, obviously a massive fu to
the British government and just spurring that public sentiment of
rolling people up to being like, you know what it's on, right?
Speaker 2 (18:36):
I mean, the Boston Tea Party in terms of propaganda
was very important. You had, of course Paul Revere and
you know, involved in creating images of this thing. But
when you look at the actual massacre itself, the term massacre,
I mean it was it was it wasn't really a
massacre with the loss of life, but the the the
(18:57):
way that they could sell this to the public was
and of course the colonists were somewhat responsible for this.
I mean, they were harassing the British soldiers or throwing
ice at him, and there was a lot of question
about whether you know, there was even an order given
to fire by the British or if this was somebody
staying in the shadows yelling fire. Of course, there's also
a fire and actual physical fire in Boston at that point,
(19:18):
and so maybe somebody got a little itchy trigger finger
and they fired. But the important part about it too
was the response by John Adams, who thought that these
soldiers needed a fair trial because if they didn't get
a fair trial, then the Parliament could look at him
and say, well, I mean we're gonna we're gonna ship
you back over to London to stand trial, so for
anything else. So he wanted to ensure that these soldiers
(19:40):
got a fair trial, and they did. He actually was
able to get several of them acquitted. So that response
to is interesting. Adams did that to a great expense
of his of his career, at least at that point,
but in terms of propaganda it's huge because now you
have dead people in the streets, and there were other
there was another event in New York City where you
had a similar kind of you know, riot. There was
some there was some bloodshed, there too, so that I
(20:03):
mean that part of that period of time, that little
bit of violence. But again things calmed down after that
for a couple of years, and then it was it
ramped back up again leading into seventeen seventy five.
Speaker 1 (20:13):
Well, and you also had, you know, other public acts
of rebellion like the Boston Tea Party as well.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Absolutely, I mean the Boston tea There are many tea parties.
That's that's a fun part of this too. The Boston
Tea Party where and the most conspicuous where they threw
the tea into the harbor. But you actually had tea
parties in Maryland. You had so you had one there
where the citizens of Maryland took all the tea off
the ship and then burned it. And of course the
(20:40):
funny thing about that is they sold it, right, They
didn't just throw it in the harbor. They took it
and they sold it and they used the money to
finance their activities against the crown. So that was the
more wise thing to do than just throwing it in
the harbor. But this, the response of the to the
Tea Act was not just in Boston. It was it
was again across the colony. So these public resistance to
these unco constitution or in toable acts was something very
(21:03):
important in leading up to the war. And again when
we think about today, we had the Tea Party movement
for a little while and people you can thrown little
tea bags into the water. I mean, that's that's funny.
But I don't know if Americans are as committed today
as as the founding generation was a standing up for
things that they considered to be their liberties. If but
(21:23):
I am encouraged by what happened with COVID and people
finally saying enough, we're just not going to wear the masks.
We're not going to do this. We're not gonna We're
not going to abide by your stupid edicts. These things
are illegal, they're unconstitutional. I think that's that was encouraging,
And also the response from various states and saying, you know,
federal government, you're really want to have this power. We're
going to do what we want to do. In you know, Florida,
(21:43):
for example, Ironda Stantis. So that was the spirit of independence,
and I think that's something again that's lacking throughout most
of America, but it is still there in many parts
of the United States, and that's a good thing to see.
Speaker 1 (21:55):
And also I think Onmacron helped too, because basically all
these people who think they thought they could hide in
their basements for two years got COVID and then they're like, Okay,
well I don't care anymore. It's sort of like deprogrammed
these crazy people.
Speaker 2 (22:07):
So right, as more and more people got it and
they figured out it was a bad cold, and of course,
you know, you can't minimize it. Initially it was. It
was pretty rough on a lot of people, and a
lot of elderly people in particular. But you know, our
response to it, the government's response to it was very
much a British type response initially, and I think that's
that's something we miss in all this, and of course
(22:28):
not everyone did, but it's a yeah, you're right. As
people started seeing this is not something that we should fear,
and they got back in and so forget it. We're
just going to live our lives. And I think that
was another great part of the sole thing at the
end of the day.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
But to your point, you know, thank god for people
like Governor DeSantis fighting against the federal government and saying
we're just not going to do this year, this makes
no sense, and having the guts and you know, the
fortitude to do that. So you know, you got the
Continental Congress starts meeting in seventeen seventy four, and then
we've got the declaration, the signing of the Declaration Dependence
(23:00):
on July fourth, seventeen seventy six, ratified by the Second
Continental Congress. Between the first and then this second Continental Congress,
what sort of because my understanding is like the first
one that not everyone was really it was more of
just kind of like setting a message saying, look, this
is sort of what we want. It wasn't really at
that point of saying, you know, we're we're full throttle,
(23:21):
we're you know, we're all in on declaring independence. So
what kind of well, first of all, you know, correct
me if I'm wrong. Secondly, what sort of transpired between
that first one and then declaring independence? That sort of
just you know, for the people kind of hanging out,
hanging on the side saying I don't know, brought them
over the edge.
Speaker 2 (23:40):
Right, Well, you're exactly right about the first Continental Congress
and John Adams complained they weren't going to do anything,
and so you have they get together in Philadelphia and
they say, all right, well look, let's let's talk about
what's happening here. And then of course they did adopt
became the Suffol Resolves, which were, as I mentioned before,
a nullification process. We're going to nullify any unconstitutional life.
(24:00):
But they weren't willing to break at that point. And
I think that's because, I mean, as Patrick Henry point
pointed out, and has give me liberty to give me
death speech. I mean, this was this was something we
were more inclined to do. People are inclined to suffer.
Weoll EVAs are sufferable. I mean, so they were generally
willing to accept. American people were generally going to accept
(24:21):
these unconstitutional invasions while they could tolerate them. Right, So
this was something that I think in seventeen seventy four
they weren't so committed to independence. Yet certainly there were
people that were. I mean again, Patrick Henry Lady was
he considered Virginia independent much much earlier than this. I
mean this early a seventeen sixty five, but in Sam Adams.
(24:43):
But I think for the most part you had in
the founding generation they were still willing to put the
brakes On, and I think the real change came when
the king rejected their pleas for an olive branch. This
was John Dickinson. He writes the olive branch petition, and
of course George the Third gets this. At the same
time he gets some male intercepted mail where John Adams says, well,
(25:04):
nobody really believes this thing anyways, and so George was
not willing at that point to accept any type of compromise.
And then, of course you get seventeen seventy five and
you get the invasion of Lexington and Concord, and I
think that's what really turned people around. They said, okay, well,
if they're going to actually march in and try to
seize our arms, which is what they were doing, that
(25:25):
was the point that there's no turning back. And so
you get that was almost a year before the declaration,
so by seventeen seventy six it was it was a
full break. And you still even have people Dickinson wasn't
going to support independence. Even in seventeen seventy six, you
still have people that weren't on board with it yet.
But in realizing that, I think most people realize when
(25:48):
there was an armed conflict in Massachusetts, and then of
course you had other events before seventeen before the declaration
as well. This was it. We can't turn back, we
can't say oop, sorry, we're going to We're just going
to say we're going to stay in the empire. There
was no way that was going to happen because the
Parliament was going to do everything they could to force
the colonies to bend to their will, and the king
(26:10):
was not going to support them. And so I think
they believed by that point they really had no choice
by seventeen seventy six except independence.
Speaker 1 (26:16):
So like for the folks like Dickerson that you just mentioned,
was it loyalty? Was it fear? Sort of what was
holding them back from, you know, being completely on board.
Speaker 2 (26:26):
With a well, I think it was a mix of both.
I mean John Dickinson was a very wealthy man in Delaware,
in Pennsylvania. He had he had a number of houses,
of course, all of which were burned except his plantation
in Delaware. And they were they were loyal to the crowd.
I mean, this is it'd be no different than any
of us sitting here today and saying my gosh, I
mean that would be a big decision for any of us,
(26:46):
do we want independence? We've been American citizens for all
these years, however old you are, and we've we've been
you know, pro United States for all this time. And
that's a big decision for people to make, and it's
not one to be taken lightly. And I think that
was the issue for many of them. They weren't certain
if they wanted that to take that step, And of
(27:07):
course there was some fear too. They knew that if
they signed their name to that declaration or voted for it,
that could be construed as treason, and so that way
you could forfeit your life and your property in that case.
So this is a big decision to make, and it's
we take this now very light law. We have July fourth,
and everyone shoots off fireworks, we have hot dogs and
ball games. But when that decision was made in Philadelphia
(27:30):
on July second, in fact, and they sat there and
stunned silence. Do we really just do this? Did all
of these people just vote by state for independence? And
there was not a big cheer and this is going
to be a big party. This was, oh my gosh,
what did we just do? And it was a heavy
decision for all the reasons you mentioned, but I think
(27:53):
that they realized the gravity of the situation and what
was going to happen and what could potentially happen if
they lost that pushbur independence.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
Of course, it's really heady what they just did, right,
I mean, I mean they're declaring war. I mean, they're
they're they're going to go to war. They're they're sending
their family members, their neighbors, the people they love to war.
I mean, that's a huge, huge thing.
Speaker 2 (28:12):
Absolutely, it's not something to take lightly. And and you know,
when you look at the costs. When they when they
said in the declaration they pledge their lives, their fortunes,
and their sacred honor to this, they really meant it.
I think that's not something that we can we can
just flippantly disregard. So many men sacrificed everything for that.
And you know, I often often talked about the Minutemen.
You know, they're in Massachusetts at Lexington and Concord. Imagine
(28:35):
you're in your you're in your bed, it's middle of
the night, and you hear a rider coming down the
road and the regulars are coming out and you have
to get up, grab your grab your musket and head
out the door to go confront the regulars of the
British army, which is one of the best armies in
the world. I mean, maybe only the French were better.
It's it's it's questionable. At that point, they're both about
(28:56):
the same. So here you are a militiaman fighting against
a regular army, and that's something we don't really think about.
These men were not trained to be soldiers like the British.
And so when you think about the Battle of Bunker
Hill and and the the casualties that these militia inflicted
on the on the regulars there. But then you move
(29:16):
forward in time to the Battle of Long Island and
how the British and the Hessians just annihilated the American forces,
and what Washington had to he was crying, he was
weeping as he's watching his men just get plowed over
by the British. And I mean, this is this is
really difficult, a really difficult time, and a really difficult
time for for a lot of people, and a hard
decision to make. And so I don't think we can
(29:38):
ever say enough about these men who were willing to,
you know, walk in knee deep snow at the at
the at the Battle of Trenton to cross the Delaware
River and all the things, all the deprivations and Valley
Forge and in the South where you know, you had
and Charleston patriots executed by the British just because they
supported the cause. And I mean, this is this is
(30:00):
really hard stuff. And so this was not something that
these people took lightly, and we should we should really
celebrate them for this if we really valued independence.
Speaker 1 (30:10):
Do you think they would have won if France hadn't
gotten involved.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
Probably not. The French breaking the blockade and and of
course sending in some reinforcements there in late in the
war was certainly beneficial. And you know, Yorktown would not
have happened without the French. So I don't think that
there's any way the United States can win without it.
And of course they you know, they knew that. I
(30:35):
think they knew that if they didn't get some type
of international support, this war was going to be over
and they were going to lose. And all of these
men who signed a declaration, We're going to go down
as traders, and we would be looking an entirely different situation,
and we wouldn't have the United States today. So the
French were valuable, and of course what did they get
out of it, Just a whole bunch of debt and
in their own revolutions. So the byproduct for the French,
(30:57):
the aftermath of the French was not what I think
they wanted, But of course it's what we wanted at
the end of the day.
Speaker 1 (31:03):
Well, and obviously, you know, we celebrate Independence Day, we
celebrate that Declaration of Independence. You know, what is the
significance of it from your perspective as a historian.
Speaker 2 (31:15):
Well, for me, it's the last paragraph. Everyone focuses on
the second in the you know, the line, all men
we hold these streets of weself evident, all men are
created equal. But for me, it's the last paragraph, which
declared that these were free and independent states, because that
sets the basis for the entire structure of the American
government from that point forward. You think about the Articles
of Confederation, well, you had they said it states were independent.
(31:36):
Even when you get to the Constitution, the way it
was sold to the states was that we have a
federal republic, and these states still have powers, all the
powers not delegated to the center. And so we have
this reserved powers idea that comes out of the Declaration.
And you have to understand Jefferson, and the Declaration called
Great Britain a state, and so it was the state
of Great Britain, and you had thirteen independent states, and
(32:00):
state could do all the acts and things which independent
states may have right to. And he said it. And
so you had thirteen countries that were unified in their
opposition to British and we come together in a federal
union that was basically modeled after what they were living
under before. Right, the central authority could regulate commerce and defense,
international commerce and defense, and then with the Constitution commerce
(32:22):
between the states, and that was it. I mean, everything
else is left to the states. All the things that
we talk about today that we wring our hands over
are really state issues at the end of the day.
And the problem is that we have people focus so
much on the center and we need one size fits
all government for everything. And that's again that's legislating for
us in all cases whatsoever. That's not what the founding
generation would have wanted. So for me, it's that principle
(32:45):
and that last paragraph that really matters moving forward in
American government.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Do you think that will happen naturally after COVID. I mean,
for instance, I left New York City because I wanted
to live freely as an American and move to Florida
for that very purpose. And we've I've seen a lot
of this migration. Red states are getting redd like Florida's
officially a red state when you look at registered Republicans
in the state. Do you think that separation is sort
(33:09):
of underway in a way that it hasn't been recently.
Speaker 2 (33:13):
Yeah, absolutely, I think COVID did a lot to do that.
People are you know, I have people listeners all the
time on my show because this is the theme of
the show is think locally, act locally, right, instead of
think globally, act locally. You got to think locally in
act locally so you can change your life at the
local level. And it's it's something that people don't realize.
And you look at protests as the Supreme Court now
(33:33):
and if you whatever your position on those are, and
I know we're talking to conservatives, so it's people would
laugh at these protesters, But what kind of impact do
you think five ten people are going to have in
the Supreme Court steps? But if they went to their
state capital, that would be larger impact. Or if they
went to their if they went to their city council,
it'd be a larger impact. And so when we start
talking about this idea of decentralization and how important Rhonda
(33:57):
Santis is for the future of Florida, I think I
hope he stays governor of Florida. And I know that
people want to be president, but we need fifty Ronda Santansis.
That's what we really need, and that would make it
to where Joe Biden would virtually be irrelevant if we
had states that actually stood up and said, you know what,
you only have these powers and we're not going to
(34:18):
let you have any others. The government really doesn't have
the central government to really doesn't have the ability to
enforce all the things that they do, and people recognize
that in the nineteenth century, it's the idea of non commandeering.
They can pass all the legislation they want, but they
don't have the resources to enforce all this stuff. The
states are going to have to do it all. So
if the states say forget it, we're just not doing it,
it changes the whole ballgame. And so I think people
(34:39):
are waking up to this, you know, and with the
mass mandates and all these other things that happened during COVID,
and the governor's saying, we're just not We're going to
keep our state open. We're just not going to do
those things. You can have whatever you want in California.
You can have whatever you want in Massachusetts or New York.
But we're going to do what we want to do
in Florida or Alabama or Montana or wherever it was.
(35:00):
We're going to take things differently. And so again that
spirit of this resistance to unconstitutional government, I think is
starting to manifest itself a little better, and people are
voting with their feet. As you said, you go into different states.
Speaker 1 (35:12):
Quick break more on the founding generation on the other side,
fast forward to the Constitution so ratified in seventeen eda,
in operation since seventeen eighty nine. So Democrats like to
say we have democracy, Republicans say we have a constitutional republic.
Why does that distinction matter? And sort of what do
(35:34):
you make of that debate that is always happening in
our country.
Speaker 2 (35:37):
Well, I mean the term democracy is a loaded term.
What kind of democracy? Do we have a representative democracy?
Do we have a direct democracy. I mean, what do
we really have. The founding generation was committed to democracy,
but it was always with a check, right. They didn't
really trust mass popular democracy because they didn't think that
people had enough information or were well educated enough to
(35:58):
make these decisions, oftentimes us. Why you see in the
Constitution itself, there's only one really democratic part of the Constitution,
and that is the House of Representatives. Otherwise, the Senate
was designed to be the state check on the entire system.
The States chose the senators, and of course through the
legislatures themselves, but the states did that originally. And then
of course the president is elected by the electoral college,
(36:20):
not direct vote. You've got the federal court system, which
is all appointed. So there's a whole lot of anti
democratic stuff in the Constitution because they just didn't really
believe that majoritarian rule was always the best thing. And
they even said it. After the Constitution was written and
it was going through ratification, there was a lot of
discussion about democracy and how this was going to be
(36:40):
a check on rampant democracy. They thought democracy was ruining
the states. They thought it was the bane of good government.
So these distinctions to make you know, we don't have it.
We don't have a democracy, but I think the best
term is a federal republic with representative government, not direct democracy.
And there were others that were concerned about what majoritarian
(37:02):
rule could do. Right, if it's fifty people here, one
hundred people or one hundred and one people, and fifty
one people get to rule the other fifty, is that
really good government? Or is that tyranny? I mean, because
those fifty people can be abused by fifty one people,
and that's I mean, we don't really think about these
things nowadays, but certainly they did. They understood that you
could have a bad government even with democracy, and so
(37:23):
you had to have some checks on that, which.
Speaker 1 (37:25):
Is why we have things like the electoral college exactly right.
Speaker 2 (37:28):
I mean it's the electoral college kept the states in
the system. It allowed for another layer from the popular vote.
We didn't count the popular vote until until the eighteen twenties, right,
I mean, no, we even knew what it was. It
didn't matter. It only mattered what the electoral college voted.
And that was certainly there to ensure that there was
(37:48):
some more educated person, so to speak, making a decision
about who is going to be president. In the United States.
But if the presidency was actually we here to that
the way it was actually designed, the president would almost
be irrelevant here for foreign policy to receive ambassadors, to
make appointments, to make recommendations. But Congress had all the power,
and that's something that Congress wants to hide. Today. We
(38:11):
have executive government because Congress allows it to happen. So
you need to be talking about Congress and what Congress
needs to do and take their own power back from
the executive. It's very difficult to do, but it's something
that I think needs to be done in the future.
Moving forward.
Speaker 1 (38:25):
Now that makes a ton of sense. You know, we're
talking about the founding generation, and we've sort of touched
on it throughout the conversation, but just get into how
far are we today from what America was supposed to be.
Speaker 2 (38:38):
I think almost one hundred and eighty degrees when you
look at seventeen eighty nine, when the US Congress meets
for the first time and we have the Constitution and
the way that was sold to the states. I use
that term because it was a ratification process where they
actually had to sell this thing. We had this new constitution.
Not everyone was on board. Where we're going to do.
How's this thing going to work? And the opponents of
the document we're talking about we're going to have a
(39:01):
government that was going to be oppressive, it was going
to abuse the states, it was going to do all
kinds of one of legal things what ultimately would be
illegal things. And those who supported the proponents of the
document insisted, no, well just look and you can only
do these things and then everything else is left to
the state. So if you just take that ratification process
and then look at where we are and everything is centralized,
(39:21):
everything is Washington, DC, everything, all the things the general
government does that are completely unconstitutional, I think they would
be the opponents would feel like they're vindicated, Well, we
told you so, and the proponents would have, you know,
egg on their face because this is not the constitution
that they sold during the ratification process, but it's what
(39:44):
we ultimately got. And so I think that the so
called anti federalists were prescient in what was going to happen.
And I mean, we are not anywhere near what was
sold to the states in seventeen eighty seven and seventeen
eighty eight.
Speaker 1 (39:56):
Well, I think one thing that the Trump administration really
opened a lot. I mean, I guess we saw it
a little bit during the Obama administration with like the
IRS targeting conservatives and things of that nature, or just
like spying on the Senate Intel Committee and reporters and
the things like that. But we really saw it come
to a head during the Trump administration sort of this
administrative state, this deep state, these bureaucrats sort of subverting
the will of the American people. How do you scale
(40:20):
back government at this point? Is is it too late
when you look at something like that.
Speaker 2 (40:25):
Well, I mean, the set, I don't think you can
reform Washington DC, but again there's certainly cracks and what
it can do. And you can even look at things
the left does, for example, sanctuary cities, which is something
that when we talk about immigration, a lot of these
sanctuary city laws written in the nineteen eighties, and it was,
you know what we're going to do here. We're not
going to enforce the federal government coming in and rounding
(40:48):
up aliens. They can come in all they want and
do it, but we're just not going to use state
resources or local resources to do it. And you know
what happened. They didn't have the resources to go do it,
and so they just the state just said we're just
not going to do these things. And I think that
is the key moving forward. We have to think about
bottom up, not top down. Washington is lost. It doesn't
(41:08):
matter if we elect Ronda Santis or Donald Trump or
take your pick of Republican. It doesn't matter if the
Republicans control Congress, because we know that they don't overdo
I mean, look, they're impotent oftentimes, and what they even,
they don't follow through on anything they say they're going
to do most of the time. So reforming Washington DC
is lost. But you can look at Ronda Santis and everything.
(41:31):
I mean, if you're in Florida right now, which you
say you're in Florida, he's doing amazing things there and
pushing back against the cancel culture in the culture War
and everything else. It's amazing what Ronda Santis is doing.
And so that is the key moving forward. I think
if we want to take things back in America, if
we want to make America great again, it has to
(41:52):
come from the bottom up. That's the only way it's
going to happen. And the states have all the authority
and all the power to do it. It's just a
matter if they're willing.
Speaker 1 (41:59):
To do it. Well, And to your point about Governor Desanta's,
I mean, it's not only our own government, like and
people within it trying to subvert the will of the
American people. We also now corporations that have come to
the party who are sort of aligning themselves with d
C and enforcing their will on you know, Americans and
enforcing like the governments will on Americans. You know, how
do you sort of what's your take on that? Like
(42:20):
we saw the recent fight with Disney and things of
that nature, big tech, you know, all these different things.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
Well, again, I think the states can regulate that kind
of thing. You know, the Santas is going after Disney. Well, okay,
if you want all these state kickbacks, well then you
have to do you have to tow the line. And
corporations the idea of a corporate person I mean that
corporate personhood is the problem there. But the other thing
average Americans can do. Of course, if you don't like
what Coca Cola or Disney or you know, the NFL
(42:46):
or what take your pick of some corporation you don't
like was doing, we'll just stop buying their products. This
is exactly what the founding generation. They were just going
to boycott your stuff, And the left does this pretty
effectively at times. Conservatives tend not to follow through where
they get ticked off for a little while and then
they just keep going what they're doing. But that economic bustle,
I think is something that needs to be said and
(43:08):
it needs to be done. We saw it with with
Disney here in this new movie, the light Year movie.
Apparently it bombed the box office because people said, we're
just not going to tolerate this, and we're not going
to bring our kids to this. It's not something we
want to do. So there is a pushback that can
happen with finances if you really want to. And then
of course also the state's getting involved and saying, if
you want to incorporate in our state, then you're not
(43:31):
going to do X, Y and Z, and I think
that's also a key to reigning in some of these
corporations as well.
Speaker 1 (43:36):
You know, obviously there's a conversation happening in the country
right now about the Second Amendment. What's the role of
the Second Amendment in our amendment in our lives? A
lot of dispute about what the meaning of the Second
Amendment was with the purpose was from a historical perspective,
what was the purpose of the Second Amendment and does
that still hold true today?
Speaker 2 (43:53):
Well, of course, the purpose of the Second Amendment was
to ensure that the United States had a militia, right,
I mean, and so when you think about the Constitution,
it says very clearly in the Constitution without the Second Amendment,
that the central government can arm the militia. Well, of course,
the theory was that they could arm the militia, then
they could disarm the militia, and the militia was every
able body citizen between eighteen and forty five, and so
(44:16):
when there was a discussion of a Bill of rights,
it was okay, well, look if they we need to
ensure that they can't disarm us and make us impotent,
and so that the state can come in or the
central authority can come in and simply run rough shot
over us. So the states controlled the militia, and of
course the states controlled the essentially the arming of citizens.
(44:38):
And so now it's interesting about that when when the
First Congress met, they actually passed the militia Law that
established the fact that every male had to be armed,
they had to have a certain had to have a firearm,
they had a certain amount of powder, a certain amount
of ammunition. So they could arm the militia, but they
could not disarm them. And so the Second Amendment is
vital to our understanding of what an armed civilian population
(45:00):
is therefore, which is to prevent centralized tyranny. And I
think there's there's no other way around it. Certainly states
can do more than the central government can. But I've
always maintained any gun control legislation from the central authority
is illegal the states. There's a lot more wiggle room
there depending on the state constitutions. But certainly this is
something that the left is politicized again looking at things
(45:22):
from present status instead of thinking about it the way
that it's just a natural right to self defense.
Speaker 1 (45:29):
Well, and I mean the Battle of lexingon Concord, didn't
I mean they were coming for guns exactly right.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
I mean, that's they were. They were trying to disarm
the militia, and that was that was what was happening
in seventeen seventy five. So they were they had a
central armory there, and but that was the ide me.
You have those in the United States. Now you have
National Guard armory. So imagine the US government coming in
and saying we're going to take this away from you.
And of course the National Guard is a whole other monster,
(45:55):
and what that means is changing the nature of the
militia there. But this is what was happening in seventeen
seventy five. So the idea is, we're going to disarm
you and we're going to take away your firearms so
you cannot resist any of our unconstitutional laws. And I
think at the end of the day, that's something we
have to recognize and realize was one of the main
parts of this American War for independence.
Speaker 1 (46:15):
Well, and I think what's really important about this conversation
with you is I think, you know, look, I was
a little bit naive before COVID to be I mean,
I always saw that the government was a bad actor.
You know, we've seen numerous examples, and the government's pretty
much always lie to us our entire lives. But I
think for whatever reason, I still was naive to the
fact that tyranny could get reborn here in America, right
(46:35):
like we were somewhat immune to tyranny, despite you know,
Reagan and beautiful quotes that he's made about freedom being
one generation away from extinction and COVID just really opened
my eyes, and I think it opened a lot of
people's eyes to the fact that, like, tyranny is here,
the threat is real, and you know, we have to
fight for liberty in America.
Speaker 2 (46:54):
Absolutely. And I think if you look at when this
process really began was in the middle of the twentieth
century and basically the Truman administration, and we created this
deep state that we have, and at the end of
World War Two, we didn't demobilize. We just kept all
the programs in place from the New Deal and then
also everything that was used to fight the war, and
(47:15):
we've just kept that in place. And all of that
deep state apparatus and the creation of the politicized CIA
and a militarized CIA and the FBI and everything that
happens there, all of that is a byproduct of extreme
centralization during World War Two, and it's always been there.
It's just that people haven't really recognized that they've lived
(47:36):
their lives and they just think the FBI just hurts
everybody else, or the CIA hurts everybody else, or the
central government hurts everybody else but not me. But now
with COVID, they saw well, I mean, if they can
do these things of these people, they can do it
to us too. And so I think that's really where
this deep state apparatus was in place, and it was
there just to use, and we saw it during twenty
(47:58):
twenty and twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1 (48:00):
Man, I could honestly talk to you for hours. This
is one of the more fascinating conversations I've had. But
you know, in the interest of time, is there anything
else you'd like to leave us with before we go?
Speaker 2 (48:09):
Well, again, I think it's important to understand that the
the Founding Generation was committed to independence, committed to decentralization,
they were committed to local government, and they were committed
to running their own lives. And if we can do
any if we can live any way like the Founding Generation,
it would be that think locally, act locally. Idea. Make
sure you're going to your city council meetings, make sure
you're paying attention to your state legislatures. Make sure you're
(48:31):
paying attention to your governors. That's more important than anything else.
Vote in those local elections, get people in those local elections,
and in your we've seen you Texas GOP. Their platform
is now national news because they're thinking about decentralization. They're
thinking about what can the local do to ensure that
we have the liberties and freedoms we want in the
state of Texas. So this is important. It's you just
(48:54):
don't focus on Donald Trump or Joe Biden or whoever's
in Congress. Think about these people at the state and
local level, and get people on an office there. You
do it yourself that want to are committed and want
to pursue these ideas of independence and decentralization. That at
the end of the day is what we can type
away from the founding generation.
Speaker 1 (49:11):
Where can people find your work?
Speaker 2 (49:13):
You can go to Brian Theplanna Hand dot com is
bron Theplanning Hand dot com and you can find everything
that I do there, my podcast, my academy, all the
stuff that I do. So it's I appreciate any of
your listeners going out there and checking me out.
Speaker 1 (49:24):
Thank you, sir. I appreciate your time. This has been
fascinating and I think a really important conversation. So I
really appreciate it.
Speaker 2 (49:29):
Well, thank you for having me. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (49:40):
So that was long though. I hope you guys at
home listen to that about the importance of independence, the
importance of liberty, what our founding generation believed, and why
we should still care about those principles today as we
celebrate Independence Day, as we go out and spend time
with friends and family. Liberty is the most important and
(50:02):
if we lose it, we lose our country. So I
really appreciated his time. I thought he was an amazing guest.
Definitely we'll have him back on the show for sure.
You guys should go check out his work. And thank
you all for listening at home. I really appreciate you
tuning in every Monday and Thursday to this show. Also
want to make my teammate, my producer, John Cassio, for
working so hard to bring this show to you and
(50:22):
for us. So thanks so much for listening. Guys. Happy
fourth of July, Happy Independence Day.
Host
Lisa Boothe
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
True Crime Tonight
If you eat, sleep, and breathe true crime, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT is serving up your nightly fix. Five nights a week, KT STUDIOS & iHEART RADIO invite listeners to pull up a seat for an unfiltered look at the biggest cases making headlines, celebrity scandals, and the trials everyone is watching. With a mix of expert analysis, hot takes, and listener call-ins, TRUE CRIME TONIGHT goes beyond the headlines to uncover the twists, turns, and unanswered questions that keep us all obsessed—because, at TRUE CRIME TONIGHT, there’s a seat for everyone. Whether breaking down crime scene forensics, scrutinizing serial killers, or debating the most binge-worthy true crime docs, True Crime Tonight is the fresh, fast-paced, and slightly addictive home for true crime lovers.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com