What an Indian Chief Taught Ben Franklin From a Single Wooden Arrow

If you try to break a single pencil, you probably can. Group a bundle together and the task compounds exponentially. This simple lesson, taught to Benjamin Franklin by an American Indian chief, revealed how the Founders could defeat the most powerful nation on earth.

"He took an arrow, and he handed it to Ben Franklin," Glenn said Wednesday on his radio program.

RELATED: #NeverTrump #NeverHillary #NeverMind: A Convention of States Is the Answer

Unknowingly, the chief demonstrated an ancient Roman concept.

"Imagine just rods and you have two bands . . . a band at the top and a band at the bottom. Have you ever seen that symbol before?" Glenn asked. "It's the fasces symbol. It's where we get fascism. You gather enough people together, you can't break them."

Fascism requires everyone to be the same. The motto of the United States --- E pluribus unum --- is the exact opposite of fascism: one from many. Individualism and personal responsibility are defining principles of the American ideal.

"The idea of America is self-reliance and self-governance," Glenn said. "So my question to you is, Do you even know what that idea is anymore, and are you really willing to live that idea?

Read below or watch the clip for answers to these singular questions:

• How is fascism related to the Tower of Babel?

• Do you prefer building with identical bricks or one-of-a-kind stones?

• Have we been talking about the Constitution and Founding Fathers too much?

• How is the Constitution like a security system?

• Are you willing to fight for the idea of America?

Enjoy this complimentary clip from The Glenn Beck Program:

Below is a rush transcript of this segment, it might contain errors:

GLENN: Benjamin Franklin was trying to figure out, how do we pull this off? How do we beat England, the most powerful nation on the earth?

Remember, this is a country that the -- the sun never set on. Its empire was so spread out, its empire was always in the daylight. How are we going to beat that? We are a bunch of farmers.

And an Indian chief was there with him, and he took an arrow. And he handed it to Ben Franklin. Let me hand this pencil to Stu. Break the pencil.

He said, "They're easy to break one by one, but if we gather them all together -- yeah, no, you shouldn't be able to do it. I don't have enough in there if you can -- yeah, you can't break them. Right? Yeah, can't break them.

STU: No. I wish I was -- I was hoping for like a really powerful moment to show my muscles off. But no, cannot do it.

GLENN: Yeah, right. So no, you can't break them, and this is just with 12 pencils. You can't break 12 pencils.

Okay. If you imagine as just rods and you have two bands at the top -- this group of pencils, and you have a band at the top and a band at the bottom -- have you ever seen that symbol before? What is it called? Fasces. Fasces symbol. It's where we get fascism. You gather enough people together, you can't break them.

So this was a Roman idea. But the Native American chief didn't know that. But here's -- here's the difference between fasces and e pluribus unum. E pluribus unum: From many, one.

Fascism requires you all to be the same. It goes back to the Tower of Babel. "Let us make bricks, and we'll build a tower to the sky."

What politician tells his people, "Hey, everybody, you're going to be so excited about my new plan: We're all going to make bricks?" You don't start that way.

You start with, "Let me tell you what we're going to do. We're going to build a tower that's going to reach the sky." Not, "Let's make bricks."

This -- he was not speaking of bricks. The Scripture talks about bricks and stones. Stones are individual. When you are forced to make bricks -- what happened with the pharaoh? He was taking people and all making them slaves. Making them all uniform, making them exactly the same. You made a brick in that mold, and that's who you were. Nothing else. We're not going to make anything out of stones anymore.

The Lord builds things out of stones. We are all unique. We are all different. And it may take some extra time. But when you cobble that together, there's nothing more beautiful than a stone fence. Much more beautiful than a brick fence. A brick house. A stone -- a natural field stone house is beautiful because it's a work of art. It took time to put it all together.

Fascists, they make everybody the same. The Indian chief knew is, you guys are rallying around a principle. And if you can get everybody around that principle -- and what is that principle? What is the idea of America?

Because right now, we're not fighting for the idea of America. I don't know anybody who is even talking about it. We're even talking about the Constitution. But the Constitution is not the idea of America. We've been too technical. We've gotten bogged down in the -- the Founders and the Constitution and everything else. And I know that sounds crazy, coming from me. Bogged down in the Constitution? Yes.

Because what is the Constitution? The Constitution is only a fence around the idea. How do we -- we have this idea. How do we build a government around that idea, that the only job of the government is to protect that idea.

We've been rallying for the Constitution. Why?

We should rally around the idea. Because that idea is pretty gone. It's pretty gone.

When you say people don't understand personal responsibility, what are you saying? The idea of America is over. Because without personal responsibility, there's no chance. Our faith has failed us.

Well, the idea of America is self-reliance and self-governance. And all of our Founders said, "Without a religious and/or moral people, this system won't work." They're saying the Constitution won't work.

Because the people no longer want the idea. They no longer want to be that person. So my question to you -- not to all of America -- to you, is: Do you even know what that idea is anymore, and are you really willing to live that idea?

There is such growing hate right now, and we're making everybody into bricks. I'm really disappointed in Ted Cruz.

Let me rephrase that. I'm disappointed in me. Why would I make this about him?

Now, part of it is, I want to believe that -- that George Washington can exist. I want to see it from somebody. I want to see somebody that is willing to stand and lose everything because it gives me hope. It gives me hope that I can do it.

Well, if he can do it, I can do it. Somebody who is just unwavering. But that's what I'm looking for.

And I'm not a politician. I don't say that in a pejorative way. Politicians go to compromise. You have to compromise. Our system was built on compromise. And so you get to a point to where you're like, "Okay. I got to compromise here or here. Where am I going to compromise?"

And if anybody is against that, what do you think the majority of Trump supporters are doing? They're compromising. They're saying, "I know I don't want this in Hillary Clinton. I know I have my values. I know he's not that. But I'm going to compromise."

And the only difference between us is the level of compromise that you're comfortable with. And we're not all bricks. We're stones. And we're meant to be stones. So you're not my enemy. He's not my enemy. I have no reason to be angry with you.

And to be honest, you don't have any reason to be angry with me. We're stones. We see things differently. And our levels of compromise are different. That's it. That's it.

We both love the country. I think there are Hillary Clinton -- lots and lots and lots, the vast majority of Hillary Clinton supporters love our country. I think Hillary Clinton does. She just has a different view of what our country is. And why is that?

Because while we argue the Constitution, we're arguing over the security system. Imagine if you spent generations arguing over the security system for a house and you paid no attention to what was in the house. You don't even know anymore why that security system was even put in, in the first place. Nobody's even talked about the treasure. The treasure is probably gone.

If the family hasn't looked and known what that security was on for, they might have sold it. They might have given it away. They might be using it as an ashtray or a footstool. You don't know. Because nobody has said, "What the hell are we even protecting?"

The treasure could be gone. And we're arguing over the security system, if that.

We're now arguing over which one should be in charge of selecting the security system, and neither one of them have even talked about the security system, let alone the treasure.

They're just saying, "I'm not moving from this address." They want you to move your house into another ZIP code. No, sir, we're not.

What difference does that make? Because it's not about the stuff, it's not about the location. This is another controversial thing to say. But all these -- all these lefties, they always say the same thing, "Donald Trump gets elected, George Bush gets elected, if John McCain gets elected, if Bob Dole gets elected, if Ronald Reagan gets elected, I'm -- go ahead and fill in the blank, everybody. I'm going to...

STU: Moving.

PAT: Leaving. Leaving the country. I'm going to Canada.

GLENN: I'm going to move to Canada. Okay. Okay. Go.

STU: None of those racists ever say they're moving to Mexico.

GLENN: Right. Yeah, right. I'm going to move to Canada. Okay. You're going to move to Canada. I'm not threatening I'm going to move to Canada if these guys are elected. First of all, Canada is not going to protect you from anything. Second of all, let me spin this around: I'm not going to move from here because of something -- hopefully. I'm going to move towards something.

If India all of a sudden had the idea, the original idea of America and said, "Look at our Constitution."

Now, I'd have to give it 25 years to see if it was stable, but if all of a sudden they had the idea of America, and we were like, "Holy cow, look at -- look at. They're kind to each other. They understand moral sentiments and the invisible hand of the market. They understand both parts of Adam Smith. They're good, they're charitable, they're standing on principle, and it's an entrepreneurial place, where you can go chart your own course. There is no caste system, no overseer that's going to keep you down."

If it was truly the spirit of the idea of America, I would move there in a heartbeat. Because I'm not betraying my country. My country is an idea. Everybody else's country is a space. My country is an idea.

Featured Image: This media file is in the public domain in the United States. This applies to U.S. works where the copyright has expired, often because its first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923.

From the moment the 33-year-old Thomas Jefferson arrived at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia in 1776, he was on the radical side. That caused John Adams to like him immediately. Then the Congress stuck Jefferson and Adams together on the five-man committee to write a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain, and their mutual admiration society began.

Jefferson thought Adams should write the Declaration. But Adams protested, saying, “It can't come from me because I'm obnoxious and disliked." Adams reasoned that Jefferson was not obnoxious or disliked, therefore he should write it. Plus, he flattered Jefferson, by telling him he was a great writer. It was a master class in passing the buck.

So, over the next 17 days, Jefferson holed up in his room, applying his lawyer skills to the ideas of the Enlightenment. He borrowed freely from existing documents like the Virginia Declaration of Rights. He later wrote that “he was not striving for originality of principle or sentiment." Instead, he hoped his words served as “an expression of the American mind."

It's safe to say he achieved his goal.

The five-man committee changed about 25 percent of Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration before submitting it to Congress. Then, Congress altered about one-fifth of that draft. But most of the final Declaration's words are Jefferson's, including the most famous passage — the Preamble — which Congress left intact. The result is nothing less than America's mission statement, the words that ultimately bind the nation together. And words that we desperately need to rediscover because of our boiling partisan rage.

The Declaration is brilliant in structure and purpose. It was designed for multiple audiences: the King of Great Britain, the colonists, and the world. And it was designed for multiple purposes: rallying the troops, gaining foreign allies, and announcing the creation of a new country.

The Declaration is structured in five sections: the Introduction, Preamble, the Body composed of two parts, and the Conclusion. It's basically the most genius breakup letter ever written.

In the Introduction, step 1 is the notificationI think we need to break up. And to be fair, I feel I owe you an explanation...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another…

The Continental Congress felt they were entitled by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" to “dissolve the political bands," but they needed to prove the legitimacy of their cause. They were defying the world's most powerful nation and needed to motivate foreign allies to join the effort. So, they set their struggle within the entire “Course of human events." They're saying, this is no petty political spat — this is a major event in world history.

Step 2 is declaring what you believe in, your standardsHere's what I'm looking for in a healthy relationship...

This is the most famous part of the Declaration; the part school children recite — the Preamble:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That's as much as many Americans know of the Declaration. But the Preamble is the DNA of our nation, and it really needs to be taken as a whole:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, 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.

The Preamble takes us through a logical progression: All men are created equal; God gives all humans certain inherent rights that cannot be denied; these include the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; to protect those rights, we have governments set up; but when a government fails to protect our inherent rights, people have the right to change or replace it.

Government is only there to protect the rights of mankind. They don't have any power unless we give it to them. That was an extraordinarily radical concept then and we're drifting away from it now.

The Preamble is the justification for revolution. But note how they don't mention Great Britain yet. And again, note how they frame it within a universal context. These are fundamental principles, not just squabbling between neighbors. These are the principles that make the Declaration just as relevant today. It's not just a dusty parchment that applied in 1776.

Step 3 is laying out your caseHere's why things didn't work out between us. It's not me, it's you...

This is Part 1 of the Body of the Declaration. It's the section where Jefferson gets to flex his lawyer muscles by listing 27 grievances against the British crown. This is the specific proof of their right to rebellion:

He has obstructed the administration of justice...

For imposing taxes on us without our consent...

For suspending our own legislatures...

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us...

Again, Congress presented these “causes which impel them to separation" in universal terms to appeal to an international audience. It's like they were saying, by joining our fight you'll be joining mankind's overall fight against tyranny.

Step 4 is demonstrating the actions you took I really tried to make this relationship work, and here's how...

This is Part 2 of the Body. It explains how the colonists attempted to plead their case directly to the British people, only to have the door slammed in their face:

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury...

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice... We must, therefore... hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

This basically wrapped up America's argument for independence — we haven't been treated justly, we tried to talk to you about it, but since you refuse to listen and things are only getting worse, we're done here.

Step 5 is stating your intent — So, I think it's best if we go our separate ways. And my decision is final...

This is the powerful Conclusion. If people know any part of the Declaration besides the Preamble, this is it:

...that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved...

They left no room for doubt. The relationship was over, and America was going to reboot, on its own, with all the rights of an independent nation.

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The message was clear — this was no pitchfork mob. These were serious men who had carefully thought through the issues before taking action. They were putting everything on the line for this cause.

The Declaration of Independence is a landmark in the history of democracy because it was the first formal statement of a people announcing their right to choose their own government. That seems so obvious to us now, but in 1776 it was radical and unprecedented.

In 1825, Jefferson wrote that the purpose of the Declaration was “not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of… but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm… to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

You're not going to do better than the Declaration of Independence. Sure, it worked as a means of breaking away from Great Britain, but its genius is that its principles of equality, inherent rights, and self-government work for all time — as long as we actually know and pursue those principles.

On June 7, 1776, the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia at the Pennsylvania State House, better known today as Independence Hall. Virginia delegate Richard Henry Lee introduced a motion calling for the colonies' independence. The “Lee Resolution" was short and sweet:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

Intense debate followed, and the Congress voted 7 to 5 (with New York abstaining) to postpone a vote on Lee's Resolution. They called a recess for three weeks. In the meantime, the delegates felt they needed to explain what they were doing in writing. So, before the recess, they appointed a five-man committee to come up with a formal statement justifying a break with Great Britain. They appointed two men from New England — Roger Sherman and John Adams; two from the middle colonies — Robert Livingston and Benjamin Franklin; and one Southerner — Thomas Jefferson. The responsibility for writing what would become the Declaration of Independence fell to Jefferson.

In the rotunda of the National Archives building in Washington, D.C., there are three original documents on permanent display: the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. These are the three pillars of the United States, yet America barely seems to know them anymore. We need to get reacquainted — quickly.

In a letter to his friend John Adams in 1816, Jefferson wrote: “I like the dreams of the future, better than the history of the past."

America used to be a forward-looking nation of dreamers. We still are in spots, but the national attitude that we hear broadcast loudest across media is not looking toward the future with optimism and hope. In late 2017, a national poll found 59% of Americans think we are currently at the “lowest point in our nation's history that they can remember."

America spends far too much time looking to the past for blame and excuse. And let's be honest, even the Right is often more concerned with “owning the left" than helping point anyone toward the practical principles of the Declaration of Independence. America has clearly lost touch with who we are as a nation. We have a national identity crisis.

The Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

It is urgent that we get reacquainted with the Declaration of Independence because postmodernism would have us believe that we've evolved beyond the America of our founding documents, and thus they're irrelevant to the present and the future. But the Declaration of Independence is America's thesis statement, and without it America doesn't exist.

Today, much of the nation is so addicted to partisan indignation that "day-to-day" indignation isn't enough to feed the addiction. So, we're reaching into America's past to help us get our fix. In 2016, Democrats in the Louisiana state legislature tabled a bill that would have required fourth through sixth graders to recite the opening lines of the Declaration. They didn't table it because they thought it would be too difficult or too patriotic. They tabled it because the requirement would include the phrase “all men are created equal" and the progressives in the Louisiana legislature didn't want the children to have to recite a lie. Representative Barbara Norton said, “One thing that I do know is, all men are not created equal. When I think back in 1776, July the fourth, African Americans were slaves. And for you to bring a bill to request that our children will recite the Declaration, I think it's a little bit unfair to us. To ask our children to recite something that's not the truth. And for you to ask those children to repeat the Declaration stating that all men's are free. I think that's unfair."

Remarkable — an elected representative saying it wouldn't be fair for students to have to recite the Declaration because “all men are not created equal." Another Louisiana Democrat explained that the government born out of the Declaration “was used against races of people." I guess they missed that part in school where they might have learned that the same government later made slavery illegal and amended the Constitution to guarantee all men equal protection under the law. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments were an admission of guilt by the nation regarding slavery, and an effort to right the wrongs.

Yet, the progressive logic goes something like this: many of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, including Thomas Jefferson who wrote it, owned slaves; slavery is evil; therefore, the Declaration of Independence is not valid because it was created by evil slave owners.

It's a sad reality that the left has a very hard time appreciating the universal merits of the Declaration of Independence because they're so hung up on the long-dead issue of slavery. And just to be clear — because people love to take things out of context — of course slavery was horrible. Yes, it is a total stain on our history. But defending the Declaration of Independence is not an effort to excuse any aspect of slavery.

Okay then, people might say, how could the Founders approve the phrase “All men are created equal," when many of them owned slaves? How did they miss that?

They didn't miss it. In fact, Thomas Jefferson included an anti-slavery passage in his first draft of the Declaration. The paragraph blasted King George for condoning slavery and preventing the American Colonies from passing legislation to ban slavery:

He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights to life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere... Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.

We don't say “execrable" that much anymore. It means, utterly detestable, abominable, abhorrent — basically very bad.

Jefferson was upset when Georgia and North Carolina threw up the biggest resistance to that paragraph. Ultimately, those two states twisted Congress' arm to delete the paragraph.

Still, how could a man calling the slave trade “execrable" be a slaveowner himself? No doubt about it, Jefferson was a flawed human being. He even had slaves from his estate in Virginia attending him while he was in Philadelphia, in the very apartment where he was writing the Declaration.

Many of the Southern Founders deeply believed in the principles of the Declaration yet couldn't bring themselves to upend the basis of their livelihood. By 1806, Virginia law made it more difficult for slave owners to free their slaves, especially if the owner had significant debts as Jefferson did.

At the same time, the Founders were not idiots. They understood the ramifications of signing on to the principles described so eloquently in the Declaration. They understood that logically, slavery would eventually have to be abolished in America because it was unjust, and the words they were committing to paper said as much. Remember, John Adams was on the committee of five that worked on the Declaration and he later said that the Revolution would never be complete until the slaves were free.

Also, the same generation that signed the Declaration started the process of abolition by banning the importation of slaves in 1807. Jefferson was President at the time and he urged Congress to pass the law.

America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough.

The Declaration took a major step toward crippling the institution of slavery. It made the argument for the first time about the fundamental rights of all humans which completely undermined slavery. Planting the seeds to end slavery is not nearly commendable enough for leftist critics, but you can't discount the fact that the seeds were planted. It's like they started an expiration clock for slavery by approving the Declaration. Everything that happened almost a century later to end slavery, and then a century after that with the Civil Rights movement, flowed from the principles voiced in the Declaration.

Ironically for a movement that calls itself progressive, it is obsessed with retrying and judging the past over and over. Progressives consider this a better use of time than actually putting past abuses in the rearview and striving not to be defined by ancestral failures.

It can be very constructive to look to the past, but not when it's used to flog each other in the present. Examining history is useful in providing a road map for the future. And America has an obvious road map that, as a nation, we're not consulting often enough. But it's right there, the original, under glass. The ink is fading, but the words won't die — as long as we continue to discuss them.

'Good Morning Texas' gives exclusive preview of Mercury One museum

Screen shot from Good Morning Texas

Mercury One is holding a special exhibition over the 4th of July weekend, using hundreds of artifacts, documents and augmented reality experiences to showcase the history of slavery — including slavery today — and a path forward. Good Morning Texas reporter Paige McCoy Smith went through the exhibit for an exclusive preview with Mercury One's chief operating officer Michael Little on Tuesday.

Watch the video below to see the full preview.

Click here to purchase tickets to the museum (running from July 4 - 7).

Over the weekend, journalist Andy Ngo and several other apparent right-leaning people were brutally beaten by masked-gangs of Antifa protesters in Portland, Oregon. Short for "antifascist," Antifa claims to be fighting for social justice and tolerance — by forcibly and violently silencing anyone with opposing opinions. Ngo, who was kicked, punched, and sprayed with an unknown substance, is currently still in the hospital with a "brain bleed" as a result of the savage attack. Watch the video to get the details from Glenn.