Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Arsonist: The Most Dangerous Man in America by Nathan Allen
http://www.amazon.com/Arsonist-Most-Dangerous-Man-America-ebook/dp/B005H4V1OI/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1420298731&sr=8-6&keywords=arsonist ^

Posted on 01/03/2015 7:28:10 AM PST by cotton1706

In this landmark work of history, Arsonist reveals the secret role of one man who challenged the foundations of feudalism and instigated the American Revolution.

James Otis was disgusted by the anti-democratic feudal structure of society and threatened to set it all “in a flame” though, he confessed, he too would likely be consumed in the fire. By the winter of 1760, this provincial bourgeoisie, one of the wealthiest and most intelligent men in the British colonies, had become fully radicalized. That his words – a promise and a prophecy – came to full fruition and his predictions about the province and his own life were entirely accurate would be unbelievable if it didn’t actually happen.

After an analysis of colonial political, social, legal and religious evolution prior to Otis’s threat, Arsonist provides a detailed, lively illumination of the issues and personalities involved in overthrowing the local government of the world’s greatest empire. A group of largely forgotten men – Otis, Sam Adams, Oxenbridge Thatcher, Jonathan Mayhew, Thomas Cushing, Patrick Henry – conceived the new country, after which men such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton midwifed it. The conception of the new nation, so vital yet so ignored, occurred in the violent though fertile grounds of Boston and Virginia in the 1760s. And no one was so instrumental to that conception as James Otis, Jr., the forgotten infantry soldier who made the general’s glory possible.

(Excerpt) Read more at amazon.com ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature
KEYWORDS: freeperbookclub
A truly great book!!

James Otis Jr. of Boston challenges the existing oligarchy, shaking the British Government to its very foundations, laying the groundwork for the American Revolution.

1 posted on 01/03/2015 7:28:10 AM PST by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

2 posted on 01/03/2015 7:29:04 AM PST by cotton1706 (ThisRepublic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
wait.please. before I get worked up: is the word "radicalized" being used to describe one of earliest American Revolutionaries?

So I guess we're to conclude that being "radicalized" is really a good thing, after all.

3 posted on 01/03/2015 7:35:51 AM PST by 9thLife (Barack Hussein Obama is one of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

America had thousands of founders most of which we either barely know their names or will never know their names.


4 posted on 01/03/2015 7:37:42 AM PST by cripplecreek (You can't half ass conservatism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 9thLife

But why is the review written using Marxist terminology?


5 posted on 01/03/2015 7:54:18 AM PST by Cincinnatus.45-70 (What do DemocRats enjoy more than a truckload of dead babies? Unloading them with a pitchfork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

/smoldering


6 posted on 01/03/2015 7:54:28 AM PST by PGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706
Bttt.

5.56mm

7 posted on 01/03/2015 7:55:43 AM PST by M Kehoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 9thLife
adjective

1. of or going to the root or origin; fundamental: a radical difference.

2. thoroughgoing or extreme, especially as regards change from accepted or traditional forms: a radical change in the policy of a company.

3. favoring drastic political, economic, or social reforms: radical ideas; radical and anarchistic ideologues.

Any of those, with the exception of the anarchistic bit, might apply to some extent to the Founders.

The Founding was a radically conservative Revolution. It overthrew the British government in the name of protecting the root principles of inalienable human rights.

8 posted on 01/03/2015 8:18:39 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cincinnatus.45-70

Radical is a perfectly good word. No reason why Marxists should be allowed to appropriate it for their exclusive use.


9 posted on 01/03/2015 8:20:03 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinnatus.45-70
Land Tenure reformists in Scotland ( The most feudal country in the west) use socialist terminology to their detriment as well.

http://www.amazon.com/Andy-Wightman/e/B0034OO3HA/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1

Private property rights are an endangered species in the UK and the UN would do the same to us by way of Agenda 21.

10 posted on 01/03/2015 8:21:06 AM PST by x_plus_one
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Cincinnatus.45-70
But why is the review written using Marxist terminology?

Maybe it's an attempt to not let the other side define the discussion; maybe it's the other side equating dissent from government to evil.
I don't know.

11 posted on 01/03/2015 8:41:24 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 9thLife

In the context of the time, I think radical is indeed an appropriate word, for the ideas being espoused took a sharp turn from the prevailing wisdom and orthodoxy, that general warrants should be illegal, that men should hold only one office at a time, that there was higher law than acts of Parliament, that those in power should be criticized and even ridiculed, these were truly radical.


12 posted on 01/03/2015 10:01:53 AM PST by cotton1706 (ThisRepublic.net)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: cotton1706; Sherman Logan
Dear sirs:

my objection isn't to the meaning of the word. Must I exert myself to point out that meanings are meaningless in the age of mass media? It is associations and perceptions that move people. In the popular mind, there is no difference between a Jihadi and a Minuteman (I count 8 of the latter in my lineage) if the hot word of the day is "radicalized".

Freegards.

13 posted on 01/03/2015 11:45:49 AM PST by 9thLife (Barack Hussein Obama is one of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cincinnatus.45-70
But why is the review written using Marxist terminology?

This misapplication -- or redefinition -- or radicalization, if you will -- of language isn't merely something journalists titillate one another (and torture everyone else) with. It has seeped into the mind of the generation now starting a career making any communication beyond the most superficial nearly impossible; and ensuring that the young mind interprets history through a Marxist filter. So I have observed. And since language is the medium of the mind, the ramifications for the proper intellectual formation of this generation are ominous indeed.

14 posted on 01/03/2015 11:55:17 AM PST by 9thLife (Barack Hussein Obama is one of them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I should have been clearer. Not “radical,” but “bourgeoisie.” Pure Marxist.


15 posted on 01/03/2015 1:53:57 PM PST by Cincinnatus.45-70 (What do DemocRats enjoy more than a truckload of dead babies? Unloading them with a pitchfork!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cincinnatus.45-70

Sorry, misunderstood.

However, “bourgeoisie” simply means middle-class. With the exception of the southern planters, who I suspect thought of themselves as gentry, I think all the Founders would have been fine with the reference. (Etymologically, bourgeoisie means “townsman,” much like the German or English burgher. During the Middle Ages the townsman were the only people outside the feudal structure of serf, vassal and lord.)

B. Franklin certainly was. One of the greatest defenders of middle-class values in history. That’s essentially what Poor Richard is.

At the time, the attack on “middle-classness” came mostly from above. The aristos, or wannabees. Not too long after the assault on MC values from the “intellectuals” started, in theory in defense of the poor. It still continues and is coming perilously close to an ultimate victory.


16 posted on 01/03/2015 2:02:09 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson