You are both correct. I own both and I went back and looked, it was
The Constitution in Exile: How the Federal Government Has Seized Power by Rewriting the Supreme Law of the Land. that I was thinking of. I have Freedom in Chains as well and I sometimes get them mixed up in my head.
From the FAQ portion of our Study Group's website:
Thanks for linking that. Interesting site, had never heard of that group before.
I'm not suggesting we offer no resistence. There is a time for it. And there are such things as fighting honorably, contasted to brutality. Strategies that involve murder and terrorism will not sway public sympathies. And as Jeff pointed out:
If things ever come to a shooting war, what kind of fighting do you see as having a chance for success? An "honorable" war with conventional means seems to me to have absolute zero chance for success against a modern military. What the UC scenario does is carry the fight to those who are the true enemies. If it comes to a shooting war, the real problem wouldnt be those military or LEO individuals who are attempting to enforce the law. It would be those who are making the laws and sending them out to do the fighting.
We all know about the gun confiscations that happened during Katrina. What if an armed resistance had broken out there? Would you fault someone for refusing to give up their means of defense at a time like that? For refusing to allow the government to confiscate their guns?
Carrying that scenario a bit further, if the confiscation attempts had started a shooting battle, who would have deserved to get shot more? The police and NG's who may not have wanted to do it but felt compelled to by orders, or the mayor who issued the orders?
Now as you said, an armed insurrection has little to no chance of succeeding if it does not enjoy some measure of popular support. In the book in the case of Henry Bowman, he did not have an option of waiting for popular support. The war was brought to him and his choice was to fight, flee, or surrender. As long as he was at war, his best chance of winning/survival was not to keep playing cat and mouse with armed military/LEO's, his best chance was "cutting of the snakes head". Making the fighting of the war too costly and unbearable for those who make the decisions. This is the obvious template for any type of civilian resistance in the last 74 years.
The fact is, the assault upon the Constitution, civil liberties, and certain American citizens begins with the lawmakers who choose to ignore their oath of office and shred the freedoms that our forefathers died for. In a war, they do not and should not enjoy any type of immunity from the results of their actions. Although the country was not at war in UC, Henry Bowman and his friends were.
The resistence is quelled, the public accepts it, and life marches forward without them. A lot like what happened at Waco.
The fact that the United States government was allowed to attack, lay siege for 51 days, and then burn alive 76 people, including 21 children and two pregnant women, without a tremendous uprising from the "Patriot" community is a cause for eternal shame for all of those who consider themselves patriots. That is TERRORISM.
So, who will comprise the large army to come behind those who give up their lives in armed rebellion to gun laws and wage an effective "war" against the government? I saw no army rise up to go vindicate the glorious dead at Waco. Without popular support, any armed rebellion will find itself snuffed out and the instigators regarded as a public danger who deserved their fate.
We are chasing a lot of rabbit trails here. In the context of discussing UC as the thread started, Henry Bowman and friends did not have the luxury of waiting for "popular support". Their choice about when the war started was made for them.
And their cause was regarded as worthy in the eyes of the colonials because of their patience, honorable methods, and their ability to sway public opinion.
Remember, only about 1/3 about the colonials actively supported the Revolution. Less than that at the beginning of the war. When the men at Lexington & Concord fired their first shots on April 19, 1775 they did not know if they would ever have the luxury of popular support. As a matter of fact, it was over a year later that the Declaration of Independence was signed. All those men knew for sure at the time was that the government was coming to confiscate their firearms.
Furthermore, I dont know how "honorable" some of the tactics were that were used to sway public opinion. John Hancock and Samuel Adams were pretty well known for greatly exaggerating the truth even telling extravagant lies to drum up support for their cause. The Revolution came about as it did in large part because of their efforts.
Finally, remember that the press at that time was very adversarial to the government, whereas now it is pretty much a propaganda arm instead. In the case of Waco, how many times did you hear the press mentioned that falsified statements were used to obtain warrants? That the Texas National Guard was lied to about what the "charges" were against the group? That the original "weapons charges" went out the window when the group volunteered to allow all their firearms to be inspected? That false drugs charges were alleged, as well as false charges of child abuse? I was only 8 years old at the time but I sure dont remember the press hammering on any of that. They WERE used to paint the Davidians in a very bad light and quell any public sympathy.
Kentucky, I enjoy a good movie as much as the next guy. The difference is I don't put those works of art up on a pedestal and pronounce them "the best ever", especially when those works really aren't. I've heard enough folks pronounce UC the best work ever, and frankly it's a poorly done work. It could have been much better with a good editor.
I agree that UC had a lot of info that was superfluous, and obviously it was not written by Shakespeare. I dont think anyone is arguing that John Ross is the finest technical writer of the day. The reason that many people, including myself, place it on such a high pedestal is that it does a superb job of outling a century's worth of abuses by the government. As someone has mentioned before, all of the information is available in other places, but I dont know of anywhere else where it is grouped together so concisely. I have read the book about 3 times, which is a considerable time investment given that it is such a large book. I guarantee you though that I have spent 10 times more time investigating and studying some of stories and historical events that are described in the book for myself, to see whether they were true or not.
I just turned 24 years old and even though I have always loved history, there were a lot of events described in UC that I had no idea had ever happened.
But even were it a technically better read, the messages is sends are still pretty vile.
If you are talking about much of the language, and the personal sexual conduct of Henry Bowman than I agree. It was a big obstacle for me and some of the people I have lent the book to. If you are talking about something else, I would like to hear you elaborate on it.