Socialism in America: The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag

I need not tell you I have issues with the American Pledge of Allegiance. The idea that we are "one nation" "indivisible" is the supreme statement of loyalty to the federal government over states rights and shows little consideration for the Constitution. I have already shared with you the tyranny of the origins of the Pledge as northern troops forced their southern brothers to swear an oath to Lincoln's tyrannical government, which was guilty of overtaxing the South to rebuild the broken down industry of the north. (How things never change!). In my opinion from its origins as an oath, I think its a very dangerous idea to announce unwavering support for any state when the state can so easily abuse power. A free people shouldn't feel compelled to pledge their undying support to the state.

Yet, if you don't stand up and say the Pledge, you are frowned upon, especially in Republican party circles.

I myself will Pledge to the Constitution and its ideas of limited government to produce a free society. I don't pledge allegiance to the symbol which is the federal government and often wonder why, based on the 10th Amendment, why I have never pledged allegiance to Missouri.

A little more digging has found an interesting fact that has gone mostly unnoticed in American history. The American Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist. It's no wonder the Pledge has this unwavering commitment to a strong central authority--the modern-day statist version of the federal government.

Francis Bellamy wrote the modern Pledge. It was through the "loyalty oaths" in which Lincoln's soldiers forced Confederate soldiers to pledge their allegiance to "Lincoln's nation" (remember before the Civil War United States was plural and after the Civil War it was singular) that Bellamy found his inspiration to the ultimate promise to the statists.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo writes:

Bellamy intended the Pledge of Allegiance to be a vow of allegiance to the state, a quintessentially un-American idea. He stated that he got the idea from the "loyalty oaths" that were imposed on Southerners during Lincoln’s invasion of the Southern states and afterward, during Reconstruction. During the war, adult male civilians in the South were compelled to take a loyalty oath to the federal government or be shot. During Reconstruction almost all Southern white adult males were disenfranchised by the requirement that in order to vote or hold political office, they must take the following oath: "I ______ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto . . ." (Baer, The Pledge of Allegiance, Chapter 4). Few if any Southern men would dare to take this public pledge in the post-war years.

Bellamy stated his undying dedication to the state in his explanation why he wrote the Pledge of Allegiance.

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the "republic for which it
stands." ... And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise
political word for the Nation – the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to
prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is
indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches.

I don't think Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine would agree with this idea of Republic meaning "one nation." A nation is nothing more than a group of people who share an ethnic background, language, and heritage where a Republic simply means to be ruled by law. You definitely hear Marxist overtones in Bellamy's explanation in his inspiration for the pledge. The idea states rights are sacrificed for a strong central government, that we all must pledge too, in order to carry out Lincoln's idea of a nation over a Republic, is really quite scary considering the very basics of this great American experiment.

Notice Bellamy's explanation of the Civil War wasn't this war of higher moral beliefs--slavery vs. freedom. Another rewrite in American history as even Lincoln's own words in his letter to Horace Greeley state:

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do lesswhenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

When I began selling computer software in the dental industry, I worked for two Russian men who escaped the Soviet Union for a better life. Curious as to life in the Soviet Union, I was offended when they told me life really isn't that much different for them. They explained to me that the freedom we are sold is craftily packaged in government rhetoric much like the Soviets used to market their government. They went on to say you aren't as free as they claim. I get it now, but back then I was naive.

Isn't that what the Pledge of Allegiance is? It's crafty rhetoric that uses words "liberty and justice for all" while getting you to promise your support for something that is quite unconstitutional--the idea of a strong central government that has great power over the states. 

I remind you of James Madison's words in Federalist 45.

The power of the federal government is limited, but the power of the states are infinite.

Of course, since the Civil War there has been a major shift in this belief as the federal government has become a strong central authority over all the states. Driving this statist agenda has been generations of kids who have been conditioned to pledge total allegiance to the strong central government by putting their hand on their chest and repeating the words. To back it up, we have American icons like John Wayne and Red Skelton adding their brand of entertainment to give it a patriotic ethos despite the pledge discourages any type of patriot act that would question the federal government.

If the Pledge of Allegiance is threatened in any way, you can count on the Republican party, the party of "small, limited government" to be the first to fight for the Pledge's survival.

What's even more interesting about all this is when Americans began reciting this pledge to strong central government, they didn't put their hand on their hearts. Up until World War II the flag was given a "Bellamy salute." You may recognize the salute in other cultures like Hitler's Germany. Kind of makes you a little uneasy seeing those children salute the American flag with a prominent symbol of Nazi Germany, doesn't it?

Bellamy has also been influential in other aspects of our lives too. You may have hear liberals argue for the ideas of socialism using the phrase "Jesus was a socialist". This idea of Jesus the Socialist, and remember Jesus wasn't this poor hippy in sandals walking around the Promised Land as they fought for his clothing as he was crucified, comes from Bellamy himself. This idea of Jesus the Socialists has been used to push statist propaganda and policy in the United States like Obamacare. Remember, Jesus was no friend of the state as seen in his anger towards the money changers, who represent the modern banking system that conflicts with the very ideas of freedom and liberty. Socialists who use Romans 13 to convince you otherwise use it out of context.

So think about that this Fourth of July. Think about all the rhetoric around you and how it applies the statist belief of a strong central government over states rights and how they use rhetoric calling it patriotism to condition you to believe the direction of the federal government is a just cause while your state is dependent and limited in its overall power. This of course is simply not the case when you read the Constitution, but both parties now push the statist agenda.