Edwin Vieira – Lexington Green April 19, 2009

LEXINGTON GREEN, APRIL 19, 2009

By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.
May 5, 2009
NewsWithViews.com

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin194.htm

What follows is an address, delivered in my absence by Tom Moor, at the Committees of

Safety rally held at Lexington Green on 19 April 2009. I have also appended an afterword.

THE ADDRESS

Ladies and gentlemen:

Lexington Green does not merely recall an historic event. More importantly, it also teaches a
profound lesson in the philosophy and practice of popular self-government.

Observe the statue standing there at the head of the green. And recall the statue at the North
Bridge in Concord. Each of them depicts but a single individual. Yet, in each case, that one
individual represents many more than himself alone: A single Minuteman, representing all of
the Minutemen.

Even more importantly, the Minutemen were no happenstance bunch of individuals some of
whom accidentally gravitated to Lexington Green and the North Bridge on the 19th of April in
1775. They were no mere crowd of farmers, artisans, and tradesmen who stumbled together
with no coherence, no general self-consciousness, no collective purpose or resolve.

To the contrary: They were members of an organization which included all free adult able-
bodied men throughout Massachusetts, with like organizations in each of the other twelve
American Colonies. An organization which had existed in Massachusetts herself for almost
150 years. An organization with legal—indeed, governmental—authority: The Militia of
Massachusetts.

And they assembled here, not to break the law, but to witness to it, to defend it, and if
possible to enforce it against British troops who were, they rightly believed, breaking the laws
of Massachusetts, abridging the Colonists’ rights as Englishmen, and flouting what the
Declaration of Independence later called “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”.

Here at Lexington, the Militiamen did not at first intend to fight—they meant only to
demonstrate their disapproval of the incursion into their town by General Gage’s troops, to
embody in their own persons on this green their legal authority, and to present a living
remonstrance through a muster of physical—but even more importantly, of legal and moral—
strength, rather than an act of outright forcible resistance.

As Pastor Jonas Clark wrote in The Battle of Lexington: An Eyewitness Narrative of That
Day, the Militia of Lexington was alarmed and ordered to meet on the usual place of parade;
not with any design of commencing hostilities upon the king’s troops, but to consult what

Page 1 of 10
Edwin Vieira – Lexington Green April 19, 2009

might be done for our own and the people’s safety: And also to be ready for whatever service
providence might call us out to upon this alarming occasion, in case overt acts of violence or
open hostilities should be committed by the British. So, recalled Reverend Parker,

alarm guns were fired and the drums beat to arms; and the militia was
collecting together. Some, to the number of about 50 or 60, or possibly more,
were on the parade, others were coming toward it. In the meantime, the [British]
troops, having * * * stolen a march upon us * * * , seemed to come determined for
MURDER and BLOODSHED; and that whether provoked to it, or not! When
within about half a quarter of a mile of the meetinghouse, they halted and the
command was given to prime and load; which, being done, they marched on ’till
they came * * * in sight of our militia * * * . Immediately upon their appearing so
suddenly and so nigh, Capt. [John] Parker, who commanded the militia
company, ordered the men to disperse and take care of themselves, and not to
fire. Upon this, our men dispersed; but many of them, not so speedily as they
might have done, not having the most distant idea of such brutal barbarity and
more than savage CRUELTY from the troops of a British KING as they
immediately experienced! For no sooner did they come in sight of our company,
but one of them, supposed to be an officer of rank, was heard to say to the troops,
“Damn them; we will have them!” Upon which the troops shouted aloud,
huzza’d, and rushed furiously towards our men. About the same time, three
officers * * * advanced on horseback to the front of the body and * * * one of them
cried out, “Ye villains, ye Rebels, disperse; damn you, disperse!” or words to that
effect. One of them * * * said “Lay down your arms; damn you, why don’t you
lay down your arms!” The second of these officers about this time fired a pistol
towards the militia as it was dispersing. The foremost, who was in a few yards of
our men, brandishing his sword and then pointing it towards them, with a loud
voice said to the troops, “Fire! By God, fire!” which was instantly followed by a
discharge of arms from the said troops, succeeded by a very heavy and close fire
upon our party, dispersing, so long as any of them were within reach. Eight were
left dead upon the ground! Ten were wounded. The rest of the company, through
divine goodness, were (to a miracle) preserved unhurt in this murderous action!

We learn from this account that, pursuant to orders, Lexington’s Militiamen were in fact
dispersing when the British opened fire on them. Dispersing, but not laying down their
arms. They knew that, by themselves alone, they could not effectively resist the
overwhelming force the British had amassed against them in the field. Nevertheless, they
refused to surrender their legal and moral authority. And later, they—along with
Militiamen from Concord and other towns throughout the surrounding area—combined that
authority with sufficient force, and drove the British back into Boston.

This is a stirring story. But what does it offer to us today? Is what happened here in Lexington
on the 19th of April in 1775 merely an historical incident with no contemporary value other
than as an excuse for a spring holiday? To imagine as much is to forget the admonition that
those who refuse to learn from history will find themselves repeating history—and generally
the hard way.

All too many Americans have become all too much forgetful of the real meaning of the 19th of
April, 1775. Today, except for a few ceremonial vestiges here and there, the true Militia of

Page 2 of 10
Edwin Vieira – Lexington Green April 19, 2009

Massachusetts, as well as the true Militia of all the other States, are almost entirely
disbanded.

Disbanded in fact, but not under “the supreme Law of the Land”. For—

The Constitution of the United States still declares that “[a] well regulated
Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”. Indeed, “[a] well regulated
Militia” is the one and only institution that the Constitution recognizes as
“necessary” for any purpose.
The Constitution still incorporates “the Militia of the several States”—according
to the principles under which they existed in 1788—into its federal structure.

The Constitution still delegates to Congress, and in default of Congress to the

States, and in default of Congress and the States to WE THE PEOPLE
themselves, the power and the duty to organize, arm, discipline, and train the
Militia.

Yet, notwithstanding the Constitution, nowhere in America are “the Militia of the
several States”, or of any State, organized in the manner and to the degree “the
supreme Law of the Land” expressly, unequivocally, and emphatically
commands.

This is not because our country faces no grave dangers against which the Militia are the first,
and the best, and perhaps in the final analysis the only means to provide true “homeland
security”. To the contrary: Today, more than ever before in America’s existence, “well
regulated Militia” are urgently “necessary to the security of a free State”, everywhere
throughout the United States.

“[T]he Militia of the several States” are effectively disbanded, and the Constitution flouted,
and America’s “homeland security” imperilled, because WE THE PEOPLE are not doing their
part. WE THE PEOPLE are not standing forth today, as the Minutemen of Lexington stood
forth in 1775, in defense of their country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Unlike the
Minutemen of Lexington, who mustered on this green, muskets in hand, to perform their
possibly fatal duties as Militiamen in the face of armed oppressors, all too many
contemporary Americans refuse to acknowledge, let alone to fulfill, even their simplest and
safest responsibilities as self-governing citizens of “a free State”.

“[A] free State” is a state in which the people actually govern themselves. “A well regulated
Militia” is composed of every able-bodied resident of the State from sixteen to sixty years of
age. The Militia consists of the people; and the people control the Militia. So, of course “[a]
well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”. It could not possibly be
otherwise.

More than that: Because “a free State” is one in which the people govern themselves—and
because “[a] well regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State”—therefore,
without “[a] well regulated Militia”, popular self-government cannot long endure. Let me
repeat that, so there can be no mistake: Without “[a] well regulated Militia”, popular
self-government cannot long endure. This is what the Constitution declares. This is
what History teaches. This is what current events are proving. This is what all Americans will

Page 3 of 10
Edwin Vieira – Lexington Green April 19, 2009

soon learn, to their everlasting sorrow, if they fail to follow in the footsteps of the men from
Lexington.

Here today, an enthusiastic throng of patriots has gathered. Yet it is only a congregation, not
an organization. Its participants sense their potential political power to bring about
fundamental, and desperately needed, reforms in this country. For strength lies in numbers;
and tens of millions of Americans share their sentiments. But potential is not actual power.
And actual political power this great mass of Americans cannot yet exercise, because its
members lack, not simply the means, but more importantly the legal authority, to do so.

That legal authority can—and must—be regained, by revitalizing in every one of “the several
States” the institutions that the monument on Lexington Green recalls, rightly glorifies, and
recommends to us today. Not just the solitary man with his musket, but the hundreds and
thousands, even millions, of men and women who should muster in “the Militia of the several
States”.

With their muskets? Surely so, because being armed is the hallmark of free
citizens and of a proper constitutional Militia. But armed not with muskets alone,
or even primarily. Because today the most important work of political and
economic reform in American can be undertaken without muskets:

There must be fundamental monetary and banking reform before a total collapse
of the Federal Reserve System plunges this country into economic, political, and
social chaos.
There must be adequate preparations for dealing with natural disasters,
epidemics, and other like catastrophes.

There must be provision of food and medical security for all Americans.

And the list goes on.

Surely, men and women who know and are determined to assert their rights will prove
capable of performing these tasks, even without muskets in their hands. If they are
properly organized. So now, just as did the Minutemen on Lexington Green, patriots
“must consult what might be done for our own and the people’s safety” and make themselves
“ready for whatever service providence might call us out to”—in and through the
organizations that the Constitution declares to be “necessary to the security of a free State”:
“the Militia of the several States”.

How is this to be accomplished? In the selfsame manner in which all fundamental political
reform must be brought about in “a free State”. WE THE PEOPLE, by themselves and
for themselves, must employ democratic self-government to save, strengthen,
and extend democratic self-government by revitalizing what the Constitution
itself declares to be “necessary” to preserve democratic self-government: “the
Militia of the several States”. The proper path is through each of the States’ legislatures,
one by one. The good people in each State must enact statutes that will revitalize their Militia
along strict constitutional lines and for constitutional purposes.

Immediately, if not sooner.

Page 4 of 10
Edwin Vieira – Lexington Green April 19, 2009

In this effort, proponents of revitalizing the Militia should seek and welcome support from
members and veterans of the regular Armed Forces, and of State and Local police, sheriffs’
departments, and emergency-services agencies. One need simply read the Constitution to
realize that the Militia’s responsibilities—“to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress
Insurrections and repel Invasions”—overlap the duties of the Armed Forces and embrace
those of State and Local police, sheriffs’ departments, and kindred agencies. Therefore, when
the Militia are revitalized, they will complement the regular Armed Forces, and supplement
the police and emergency-services personnel. The Militia, the Armed Forces, the police, and
so on will be the closest of allies, never competitors, let alone antagonists—because they will
all share the very same goal: the preservation of popular self-government against all enemies,
foreign and domestic.

The enemies of “a free State” know this. Which is why they belittle the movement for
revitalization of the Militia with the contention that “revitalization of the Militia is useless,
because the Militia cannot effectively fight the Armed Forces”. This is black propaganda
broadcast in order to sow dissension, to create distrust, and to engender defeatism. And it is
obviously wrongheaded, because it rests on the demonstrably false assumption of an inherent
conflict between the Militia and the Armed Forces.

Precisely where does the Constitution say that the Militia and the regular Armed Forces must,
or will, or should, or even might fight, one against another? Are not the Militia and the Armed
Forces components of the very same constitutional plan? Are not they equally dedicated to
securing the same “common defence” and “general Welfare” that the Constitution’s Preamble
promises to all Americans?

Perhaps the dark day will dawn when aspiring usurpers and tyrants will attempt to seize
power in the United States. But one cannot assume that, on that day, the Armed Forces, in
whole or in a major part, will consist of traitors who will aid and abet such a conspiracy by
taking up arms against their own people. Perhaps, too, a few rogue elements in the Armed
Forces might provide those usurpers with some aid and comfort. After all, every barrel
contains a few bad apples. But, even then, would not the better part of the Armed Forces and
the Militia concert their efforts in order to restore and preserve constitutional government?
Why should Americans expect any other outcome?

We are reminded here today that the members of the Armed Forces, sheriffs, the police, and
other public-service personnel take an oath to support the Constitution. What, though, must
be the consequence of this oath? The Constitution recognizes and empowers “the Militia of
the several States” as fundamentally important parts of its federal system. In fact, the
Constitution devotes more words to setting out Congress’s and the States’ powers with respect
to the Militia than it does to setting out Congress’s powers with respect to the Army and the
Navy. And the Constitution appoints the President of the United States as Commander in
Chief of both “the Army and Navy of the United States, and * * * the Militia of the several
States”. Thus, constitutionally, “the Militia of the several States” are at least as important as
the regular Armed Forces. For that reason, when the members of the Armed Forces take an
oath to support the Constitution—all of the Constitution, without any exception—they
take an oath to support “the Militia of the several States” as component parts of the
Constitution, too. Today, however, “the Militia of the several States” are not properly
organized anywhere within the United States. So the oath that members of the Armed Forces

Page 5 of 10
Edwin Vieira – Lexington Green April 19, 2009

take to support the Constitution as it should be enforced in its entirety must translate into an
oath to support revitalization of the Militia, so that the entirety of the Constitution can be
enforced. One cannot take an oath to support the Constitution as a whole while at the same
time acquiescing in the neglect, failure, or intentional refusal of public officials to put into
operation the very institutions that the Constitution itself declares are “necessary to the
security of a free State”.

The enemies of “a free State” also seek to demoralize patriots by claiming that the restoration
of constitutional government throughout the United States is impossible. But it is precisely
the revitalization of “the Militia of the several States” that will make such restoration, not only
possible, but also relatively easy. We know that it will be possible, because the Constitution
itself assures us that “well regulated Militia” are “necessary to the security of a free State”—
and, if “necessary”, then surely they will be sufficient for that purpose. We can further rest
assured that restoration of constitutional government through revitalization of the Militia will
be practicable, because “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” favor the big battalions—
and the good people of America outnumber the enemies of “a free State” by orders of
magnitude. Not only that. Once organized in “the Militia of the several States”, Americans will
have unquestionable right—in the form of constitutional authority—as well as overwhelming
might on their side.

The “embattled farmers” of Lexington choose to meet the British troops on this green because
this was the farmers’ own ground that the British were invading and violating. The
Minutemen were in rightful possession. And possession, the old saw has it, amounts to nine-
tenths of the law. The other one-tenth is enforcement of that possession. Who, though, are
better able to enforce, and have the greater incentive to enforce, possession than the people in
actual possession—in decisive numbers, with right on their side, and thoroughly organized to
convert numbers and right into might?

In sum, the lesson that History sets before us today in bronze, and stone, and greensward is
plain enough for anyone to learn, and compelling enough for every patriot, not only to take to
heart, but also to put into action. Americans will rest secure in their constitutional freedoms
only when they themselves secure those freedoms through the “necessary” constitutional
means: namely, “the Militia of the several States”. Nothing less has sufficed in the past;
nothing less will do today.

The Militiaman standing at the head of the green reminds us that self-government is not a
“spectator sport”. It is a “team effort”. And it is not just a game, either. It is a free people’s
vocation—sometimes even a sacrificial vocation. So, with that insight and that inspiration,
when we leave this green today let us bear with us a new resolution, and a new understanding
of how, to make constitutional self-government a reality throughout America.

AN AFTERWORD

Why was this address necessary and proper? Not simply once again to eulogize the Embattled
Farmers of 1775—although they deserve unstinting praise on every April 19th. But also,
especially, to admonish living Americans—so few of whom either sew or reap in the garden of
patriotism that our country can expect to enjoy no harvest of freedom and prosperity, either
today or in the foreseeable future.

Page 6 of 10
Edwin Vieira – Lexington Green April 19, 2009

The Forces of Darkness are intent upon separating America’s regular Armed Forces and
professional police departments, sheriffs, and other law-enforcement agencies from her
people as a whole. This is hardly surprising, as such a separation is the necessary condition
precedent to, if not the very essence of, a para-militarized police state. The evil strategy is
simple enough:

First, infect the Armed Forces and police with contempt for patriotism, for
constitutionalism, and particularly for any exposure of, dissent from, protest against, and
action to counter the oppression and looting of society by the shadow government of factions
and special-interest groups that dominate the Disgrace of Columbia.

Second, engender fear among the Armed Forces and police by demonizing all opposition to
the shadow government as emanating from ignorant, racist, and violent “militia” groups. If
someone correctly points out that the Second Amendment declares “[a] well regulated Militia
* * * necessary to the security of a free State”, so much the better—for if a “militia” can be
portrayed as the domain of armed crackpots, then “a free State” led by “militia”-types must be
even worse!

Third, align the Armed Forces and the police with the shadow government as its agents in
systematic, ever-expanding oppression of the people. If the people remonstrate against well-
orchestrated threats of “martial law” and unpunished incidents of “police brutality”, they
thereby prove themselves enemies of the Armed Forces and the police, closing the logical loop
in the Dark Forces’ self-fulfilling prophecy. In the Dark Forces’ estimation, nine-tenths of
both the Armed Forces and police, on the one hand, and the people, on the other, will likely
prove too dense or too brainwashed to realize that the two groups should be allies, not
antagonists, and that they should join forces against their mutual enemies, the Forces of
Darkness, rather than savage one another.

Fourth, if the people openly and strenuously resist oppression, then turn the most
radicalized rogue elements of Armed Forces and police loose against them—and let the two
groups, that should be acting in unison to defend their country, fight amongst themselves in
free-fire zones to the bitter end, with the destruction of America the only possible outcome,
and the self-selected elitists in the shadow government the only possible winners of the
contest.

So, some of the questions members of the Armed Forces, police, sheriffs, and other law-
enforcement and emergency-response personnel should be asking themselves right now are:
Who is actually causing economic collapse, social turmoil, and political unrest in this
country—and in whose interest?

What will happen to this country unless fundamental changes are forthcoming, and soon—
particularly, changes in political leadership at every level; and in the economic system,
especially with regard to money and banking.

Which public officials have betrayed their oaths of office, and how? (Or, perhaps easier to list,
which public officials have consistently been true to their oaths of office?)

Who is trying to subvert the Armed Forces and police so as to transmogrify them into agents
of oppression along the lines of the Gestapo and NKVD?

Page 7 of 10
Edwin Vieira – Lexington Green April 19, 2009

Who is threatening to declare “martial law”, and to what end?

Perhaps the question of immediate importance is: “How is “martial law” even possible under
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?”

Personally, I am—and I should hope every thinking American is—thoroughly sick and tired of
hearing the purveyors of gloom and doom warning this country, over and over in the dire
tones of a dirge of despair, that “martial law” will soon be imposed, and the Constitution “set
aside”. Are all of these people legal ignoramuses? Or perhaps are some of them agents of
influence and agents provocateurs acting on behalf of the Forces of Darkness, to condition
Americans to accept defeat before they have even begun to fight?

The answer to the question “How is nationwide ‘martial law’ possible under the Declaration of
Independence and the Constitution?” is: NOT AT ALL! And the answer to the further
question “Will ‘martial law’ be imposed across America?” is: NOT ON YOUR LIFE, OR IN
YOUR LIFETIME, IF YOU VALUE YOUR LIFE!

All Americans should recall—and, these days, perhaps train themselves to recite by heart—
what the Founding Fathers learned from their legal mentor, Sir William Blackstone, about
“martial law”:

[M]artial law, which is built upon no settled principles, but is entirely arbitrary in
it’s decisions is * * * in truth and reality no law, but something indulged, rather
than allowed as a law: the necessity of order and discipline in an army is the only
thing which can give it countenance; and therefore it ought not to be permitted in
time of peace, when the * * * courts are open for all persons to receive justice
according to the laws of the land. * * * And the petition of right enacts * * * that
no commission shall issue to proceed within this land according to martial law.

Commentaries on the Laws of England (American Edition, 1771), Volume 1, at 412 (footnotes
omitted).

Can any rational individual imagine that, knowing what “martial law” was, America’s
Founders—let alone the Embattled Farmers who responded under arms to the alarm at
Lexington and Concord in 1775—believed that it was, or even could be, among the “just
powers” that “Governments * * * deriv[ed] * * * from the consent of the governed” for the
purpose of securing men’s “unalienable Rights”?

Can any rational individual imagine that, knowing what “martial law” was, and having just
won a long and bloody War of Independence that started with British General Thomas Gage’s
military take-over of Boston, America’s Founders included within the Constitution an arcane
power to impose “martial law” throughout the country? (For no hint of such a power appears
in so many words.) And this, when even in England—from subjection to which they had just
freed themselves—“no commission shall issue to proceed within this land according to martial
law”?!

And can any rational individual imagine that, knowing what “martial law” was, the Framers of
the Bill of Rights could have conceived of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”,

Page 8 of 10
Edwin Vieira – Lexington Green April 19, 2009

“well regulated Militia”, and “the security of a free State” all being subordinated to “martial
law” on the whim of some President (or, more realistically, the sly courtiers who have his ear
and pull his strings)—and We the People left with no recourse but to knuckle under or be
ground under by some Praetorian Guard?

Are not the Declaration of Independence—which explicitly rests upon “the Laws of Nature
and of Nature’s God”, and the Constitution—which explicitly sets out the powers and
disabilities of government, total and uncompromising rejections of the notion of “law” “built
upon no settled principles” or “law” “entirely arbitrary in it’s decisions”?

But these are rhetorical questions, the answers to which are self-evident. Under America’s
Declaration of Independence and Constitution, “martial law” is and can only be “martial
lawlessness”. It is the antithesis, the antagonist, the assassin of law.

A crime, true enough—but in whose interest? For, as Franklin D. Roosevelt is reputed to have
observed (and he would certainly have known): “Nothing happens in politics by accident. If it
happens, you can be sure it was planned that way.” “Martial law” is the Dark Forces’
euphemism for their plan to extinguish the rule of all true law. If their revolution can be
accomplished without main force—through instilling apathy, fear, resignation, and despair in
the people—so much the better. But, if not, then force will be applied, because they expect
that the people will exert no significant counterforce. If they thought otherwise, they would
be deterred. Because they are few, We the People many. To the extent that We the People
assert their constitutional authority, and the power that derives from it, the Dark Forces
become powerless.

This is why revitalization of “the Militia of the several States”—immediately, if not sooner—is
so crucial. And why every member of the Armed Forces, policeman, sheriff, and emergency-
services worker—everyone who traces whatever authority he claims to exercise back to his
oath of office to support and defend the Constitution—needs to rally behind that effort. For
what good is an oath to support and defend a “supreme Law” that is not enforced? And what
legitimacy does a uniform or a badge confer, when they represent only a “supreme Law” that
even their wearers flout?

Edwin Vieira, Jr., holds four degrees from Harvard: A.B. (Harvard College), A.M. and
Ph.D. (Harvard Graduate School of Arts and Sciences), and J.D. (Harvard Law School).
For more than thirty years he has practiced law, with emphasis on constitutional issues. In
the Supreme Court of the United States he successfully argued or briefed the cases leading to
the landmark decisions Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, Chicago Teachers Union v.
Hudson, and Communications Workers of America v. Beck, which established constitutional
and statutory limitations on the uses to which labor unions, in both the private and the
public sectors, may apply fees extracted from nonunion workers as a condition of their
employment.

He has written numerous monographs and articles in scholarly journals, and lectured
throughout the county. His most recent work on money and banking is the two-volume
Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution

Page 9 of 10
Edwin Vieira – Lexington Green April 19, 2009

(2002), the most comprehensive study in existence of American monetary law and history
viewed from a constitutional perspective. www.piecesofeight.us

He is also the co-author (under a nom de plume) of the political novel CRA$HMAKER: A
Federal Affaire (2000), a not-so-fictional story of an engineered crash of the Federal
Reserve System, and the political upheaval it causes. www.crashmaker.com
His latest book is: "How To Dethrone the Imperial Judiciary" ... and Constitutional
"Homeland Security," Volume One, The Nation in Arms...

He can be reached at his new address:

52 Stonegate Court
Front Royal, VA 22630.

E-Mail: Not available

Permission to reprint this article has been granted by NewsWithViews.com because the
following criteria has been met:
1. Proper credit has been given to the author of the article in question
2. Credit has been given to NewsWithViews.com
3. The URL link to the article in question is included.

///

Page 10 of 10