I spent my whole life running around, Still let the wind kinda blow me around
…And I traded it in for a whole 'nother world, A pirate flag and an island girl –Kenny Chesney

Do you like Pirates?  I know I do.  I could watch Pirates of the Caribbean over and over again.  Many people who live on the coast have pirate bumper stickers that say Salt Life.  But Pirates have bad reputations because they pillaged innocent people, even though we don’t normally associate them in that way. Usually, we associate them with island vacations where people let go of their worries and play instead of worrying about work. Still, maybe we ought to ban pirates because they didn’t respect the rights of those they pillaged? On second thought, that might make some people very sad.  Pirate aficionados derive joy in thinking about living by their own rules and leaving behind their responsibilities. Pirates are so popular among some groups of people that there are toys, flags, clothing, and even a Talk Like A Pirate Day. Besides, just because some people find pirates offensive, the First Amendment protects free speech, so long as it isn’t inciting people to violence. 

Many people like to buy Confederate Flags and clothing with the Confederate flag logos.  Those who appreciate the flag logo most often associate this emblem with the idea of states’ rights.  The flag was first flown by the Confederacy in the Civil War, a war in which many slave holding states asserted their right to secede from the union, rather than change their economy, which relied on slave labor.  In the beginning, this “war between the states” was about preserving the union.  After fighting for two years, however, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation which declared that all slaves in states rebelling against the Union were free, leaving slavery intact in the Border States. Freeing the slaves in the Confederate States became a Union war objective. Although the Confederate States of America wanted to maintain a way of life which included the subjugation of a group of people based on their color, today, many people would agree that not unlike the Pirate Flag, the Confederate Flag has come to symbolize states’ rights, not the subjugation of a group of people. 

Recently, in Charleston, South Carolina, Dylann Storm Roof was charged with shooting nine people at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church.  Prior to the shooting, the suspect had been photographed “waving Confederate flags and wearing symbols of racist white regimes, and reportedly wrote of fomenting racial violence.” (The Washington Times) Because he was seen in this manner, many groups are demanding that the Confederate flag be removed from the public square because it is associated with white supremacy and incites people to racial violence.  This is particularly interesting because in many acts of terror, law enforcement agencies are told not to profile, i.e., associate certain clothing or associations as increasing the likelihood of violence.  If a person had committed this shooting wearing a pirate shirt, would there be screams to remove pirate paraphernalia from merchandisers and consider those displaying such emblems as inciting violence?

After the Boston Massacre, when John Adams defended the Red Coats in a Massachusetts Court of law, he explained that because we are a nation of laws and not of men, everyone is entitled to a fair trial.  He and the soldiers he defended, recognized that an unruly mob which was angry about British subjugation of the colonies might not be able to look at the specific events objectively.  They would merge their experiences and punish the soldiers, regardless of the reality.  John Adams was a brilliant lawyer and was able to save the soldiers from what at first seemed to be a certain fate.   In his summation he stated,
Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

We would be wise to heed the words of John Adams before the wishes, inclinations, or dictates of passions force the removal of the Confederate Flag from the public square, erasing a symbol of states’ rights at a time when the Tenth Amendment has been completely ignored by the Supreme Court in recent rulings on Obamacare.  Freedom of speech is one of the first freedoms.  There is no freedom not to be offended.  And the meaning behind symbols and of words cannot be changed just to fit a political agenda. 

When you think about it, both flags could represent subjugation or freedom.  Yo ho, yo ho, A Pirate’s life for me.

How many Americans remember learning about the Boston Massacre when they were school children? I wonder, does anyone truly understand why we are required to learn about incidents like this in our school’s curriculum? In the aftermath of the Boston Massacre, John Adams agreed to represent the British soldiers who were forced to defend themselves against an unruly mob. This was not a popular position to take; yet John Adams was not one who would concern himself with such things.  He took on the challenge because of his understanding of and respect for the law.

Below, is an excerpt from John Adams’ speech at the Boston Massacre Trial.

-Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence: nor is the law less stable than the fact; if an assault was made to endanger their lives, the law is clear, they had a right to kill in their own defence; if it was not so severe as to endanger their lives, yet if they were assaulted at all, struck and abused by blows of any sort, by snow-balls, oyster-shells, cinders, clubs, or sticks of any kind; this was a provocation, for which the law reduces the offence of killing, down to manslaughter, in consideration of those passions in our nature, which cannot be eradicated.

As explained in John Adams and the Massachusetts Constitution ,

Adams contended,

Because the evidence was unclear as to which soldiers had fired, it was better for the jury to acquit all eight defendants than mistakenly to convict one innocent man. "The reason is, because it's of more importance to community, that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt should be punished." He believed that the soldiers had a right to a fair trial. 

John Adams won the acquittal of six British soldiers and two defendants received convictions for the lesser charge of manslaughter, for their role in the deaths of five colonists.

Few people understand the legal origins from which our rule of law is derived, beginning with the Magna Carta which established the principle that no one, including the king or a lawmaker, is above the law. Nor are people cognizant of the subsequent history and philosophy influencing the framers of our U.S. and many state constitutions. Sadly, this lack of understanding is what allows so many people to disregard system a system of justice intended to be impartial and to afford each citizen equal protection under the law. It is this disregard which propels mobs to demand social justice and influences politicians to entertain the passion of the people.  The founders and framers were afraid of mob rule.  They understood that emotion impairs judgment.  John Adams so eloquently explained during the trial:

The law, in all vicissitudes of government, fluctuations of the passions, or
flights of enthusiasm, will preserve a steady undeviating course; it will not bend to the uncertain wishes, imaginations, and wanton tempers of men.

Whether or not Stand Your Ground laws should be repealed is up to the legislating bodies in charge of implementing and repealing legislation in their consecutive states.  Perhaps Stand Your Ground violates a historic perspective on manslaughter, perhaps not.  But historical precedence does constrain our ruling bodies from double jeopardy or from holding a person accountable for violating a law which did not exist at the time it was broken.

The study of our state and U.S. constitutions does not receive nearly enough attention in our nation’s schools.  While reading, writing, and arithmetic are critical to an educated citizenry, understanding how our rule of law is designed to limit government and maximize freedom is critical to the liberties for which our forebears fought so hard. To allow a witch-hunt in the form of our own government asking our citizenry to report incidences of possible malfeasance by the recently acquitted George Zimmerman in order to prosecute him a second time for his role in Trayvon Martin’s death would be a travesty and antithetical to our system of justice. 

We live in a constitutional republic.  The founders and framers understood that we needed written law under which everyone is treated equally.  They also recognized that a representative government in which there was a people’s house and a senate, as well as a judiciary that practiced good behavior, would constrain the passions of the mob and allow those holding office to impassively legislate, enforce, or adjudicate.  Allowing the media and special interest groups to demand the government take additional legal action against George Zimmerman establishes very dangerous precedent.  The people and their representatives need to rethink this course of action before we irrevocably damage the rule of law under which we are afforded our equal protection and under which our rights are guaranteed.