The American Revolution/Rebellion

[No Deceit]

"But the day is past. The second day of July, 1776, will be a memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations, as the great Anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp, shews, games, sports, guns, bells, bon-fires and illuminations, from one end of the continent to the other, from this time forward forever."[John Adams to Mrs. Abigail Adams, 1776]

This great Anniversary Festival which Adams spoke of is what we call today Independence Day. For the most part the way we celebrate this day of independence, and its significance has held true for the last 200 years. There are huge displays of fireworks, shows and yes many solemn acts of devotion to God. Americans throughout history have looked to this day as a defining moment, a day that has become an embodiment of what a true American should be. We continue this celebration, by honoring the dead heros of America's past with those of our present.

From school children on, we have been taught to revere the men of the Revolution as great men, men who sacrificed life for the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. We have been taught, spoon fed, the doctrines of the Revolution that separation from a tyranical government was lawful and a God given right. These doctrines have been taught ever since that fateful year the pen was struck to paper. The Declaration would produce the revolution that the rest of the world would see as the beginning of the end of the monarchial system of government. Dr. Elias Boudinot, former president of the Continental Congress in 1783, taught these doctrines 17 years after the end of the Revolution:

"It is not then an unreasonable expectation which, I well know, generally prevails, that this day should be usually devoted to the perpetuating and respectfully remembering the dignified characters of the those great men with whom it has been our honor to claim the intimate connection of Fellow-Citizens-men who have purchased our present joyful circumstances at the individual price of their blood."[Speech before the New Jersey Society of the Cincinnati on July 4, 1793.]

Such a mentality prevailed upon the American mind of the past. Today, our religious leaders teach these same doctrines. James Dobson writes,

"Hundreds of other quotes exist in the record, including brilliant statements by military heroes, authors and patriots such as Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry and Robert E Lee. I can't read their writings without marveling at the spiritual heritage that has been handed down to us through the ages."

"Given this vast volume of historical evidence, it is utterly foolish to deny that we have been, from the beginning, a people of faith whose government is built wholly on a Judeo-Christian foundation. Yet those of our people who do not study history can be duped into believing anything." [An Examination Of Our American Spiritual Heritage, Pamphlet, James Dobson]

Yes, I must agree many people have been duped, but it is James Dobson (and those who follow him) who has been "duped". He has been hoodwinked into believing in the lie that our forefathers were godly men, and that the American Revolution was pleasing in God's eyes. These men, "Christians" and the secularists alike, have been duped into believing and following the traditions of men.

Beware lest anyone cheat your through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. (Colossians 2:8)

This warning should be well taken when considering this subject, because of the duplicities of doctrines being taught in the realm of our so called godly heritage. It is a danger, because the so called Christian world has embraced the doctrines of the Revolution as their own, and have propagated the same deceit that the forefathers themselves propagated. For example, the doctrine Jefferson wrote in the Declaration stated that God had given them the right, "to alter or to abolish it [government], and to institute a new government. . ." Most of American "Christians," along with the secularists, have joined together in praising this heritage (i.e. the right of man to rebel against the authority).

Instead, the Christian is to be governed by this doctrine:

For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness, righteousness, and truth), finding out what is acceptable to the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. (Ephesians 5:8-11)

Let us be Children of light and expose the darkness of the American Revolution. . .

 

[No Deceit]

The American Revolution and most of its prominent players in it, were not godly men or women, but in fact were wicked in their actions and in their beliefs. We (as Christians) can say this because 1 John clearly states,

"In This The Children Of God And The Children Of The Devil Are Manifest: Whoever Does Not Practice Righteousness Is Not Of God, Nor Is He Who Does Not Love His Brother." (1 John 3:10)

It would seem by all indications from what we have to study, that these men, and women, died children of the devil, never repenting of their rebellion.

Dr. Ridner, my history professor (at California State University of Northridge, whose emphasis is on Early Colonial America and the Revolution) was asked what her view was on this point:

"Off-hand I can't think of anyone who regretted his participation in the Revolution, largely because it was a story and an event told by winners, who were proud of their participation and seeking to propagandize the whole event. I do know of some military leaders who fought in the west against mainly the Indians--but also against the British and loyalists-- who, if they didn't overtly regret some of their actions-- did at least show some vague level of compassion for the peoples whose lives they had destroyed. "

Scripture is clear what our responsibility toward our Government should be (Be it yesterday or today).

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. (Romans 13:1,2)

The Colonists' act of rebellion flies in the face of this clear commandment of God. Did they overlook this verse? No, these were not men ignorant of Scripture. In fact, they used Scripture to support their cause in the most devious of ways. The deception that prevailed during this period of history was immense. God and Scripture was the vehicle of mobilization that unified the cause, gave it credence, and allowed the Deist leaders at the top to move the masses toward rebellion. Scripture was the Forefathers' most useful tool of propaganda. In fact, written at the bottom of the original Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress ordered copies of the Declaration to be sent to local ministers who were,

"required to read the same to their respective congregations, as soon as divine service is ended, in the afternoon, on the first Lord's day after they have received it."

Many Protestants at the time, including Baptists, Methodists, and Presbyterians, did so. No, these men did not shy from these verses, but instead twisted them to their own destruction. As Jonathan Mayhew did, who preached a sermon entitled, "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission". On the anniversary day of the execution of Charles I, Mayhew preached that Romans 13:1-6 was binding insofar as the government honors its, "moral and religious" obligations. He stated that rulers,

"have no authority from God to do mischief. . .It is blasphemy to call tyrants and oppressors, God's ministers."

Some ministers went even further and called England the beast from Revelation. But these men, these "godly" men, failed to remember that Paul wrote these verses under the authority of the Roman government which was more oppressive than 18th century Britain. The Roman government was morally vial, worshiped many gods, and enslaved those they conquered. In this context, Paul wrote that we are to submit to the government. Is it really blasphemy, "to call tyrants and oppressors, God's ministers."? God does so(Romans 13:4). This minister (Jonathan Mayhew) failed to see that God raised leaders like Pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites, although these same slaves did not raise a sword in rebellion. Millenniums later, God raised up Napoleon, and some time later Hitler! No matter who the leader of the country is we are called to submit. Nowhere in scripture are we given the right to rebel against the authority. There is a time not to obey and that is when that authority commands us to do something that would disobey God. We obey the authority, because in doing so we are obedient to God. But, when we do disobey, we do not do so with sword in hand, but suffer for doing good(1 Peter 4:15f).

What the Forefathers were asking the Colonists to do in 1776 would be a good example when a Christian could, and should disobey. They were asked to stand in rebellion against Britain and this would be disobedience to God. Many did, in fact disobey the "patriots." Almost a third of the population were loyal to the crown. That is not to say that the loyalists were anymore godly, but they did suffer as they held the moral high ground.

What is now understood as, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, was before, and more true, Life, Liberty, and Property. Property is what this revolution revolved around. The right of Parliament to tax the property of the Colonists. This was not lost upon Samuel Adams, one of the leaders of the violent gang called the Sons of Liberty, who stated,

"Among the NATURAL rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; second, to liberty, third, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can." [Samuel Adams: The Rights of the Colonists: November 2, 1772, OSL 173.]

This man, who himself along with his cousin, John Adams, claimed to be Christians, held a belief that was in rebellion not only to Britain, but to God. Samuel Adams in the same went on to state,

"The NATURAL liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule."

Is this NATURAL right one that is given by God? I hope most can see that this is completely a lie in light of Romans 13 and what Peter states,

Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors, as to those who are sent by Him for the punishment of evil doers and for the praise of those who do good. (1 Peter 2:13-14)

Interestingly, Peter adds this in verse 16,

As free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants to God.

The Forefathers had clearly used their liberty for vice!

We must also take note that Peter as well wrote under the governmental authority of Rome. He not only wrote for the citizen to submit to the government, but for the slave as well to submit to their master and their government. Typically, these slaves were enslaved by conquest (1 Peter 2:18f). These Biblical concepts would probably enrage the "enlightened" thinker of the Revolutionary era.

Property was the main contention for the Revolution. We see this if we study the events that transpired following the Sugar Act, and Stamp Act. These were acts that for the first time, struck at the money bags of every citizen in the Americas. After the Stamp Act, we soon see the formation of the ban against British goods, the formation of the Stamp Act Congress, and the formation of the Sons of Liberty. It was this attack upon their PROPERTY that provoked Samuel Adams justification for rebellion against the authority--a NATURAL right set forth by God, as he stated (See "Benjamin Franklin speaks before the House of Commons"). Instead Paul states this in Romans 13:7.

"Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor."

What began as a contention for "no taxation without representation" soon became just plain no taxation and no authority.

These Sons of Liberty were quick to demand liberty for themselves, but when others refused to see the issue involving Britain as they did, they resulted to violence.

"Patriots attacked more than buildings. Isaac Backus noted the apparent murder in November 1776 of Ephriam Avery, a supporter of the Crown and the Anglican minister at Rye, New York. Those responsible contrived to make his death look like a suicide, an adroit move in a colony where loyalist sentiment ran high. Pennsylvania Quakers also experience significant harassment for their pacifism and neutrality. . . In May 1776 a stone-throne mob forced Philadelphia Friends to observe a fast day that the Continental Congress had proclaimed. . . Patriots, celebrating the surrender of Conrwallis in October 1782 ransacked Quaker homes that had not displayed victory candles." [Jon Butler, professor of Yale University, from "Awash in a Sea of Faith(1990)]

continued...

 

[No Deceit]

No piece of document of the times was more influential in convincing Colonists to rebel than Common Sense, written by Thomas Paine. This pamphlet in its first year of printing was printed over 100,000 times (an amazing number in the light of the times when printing was still a costly and slow process). It was this document that finally convinced George Washington that rebellion was the proper course of action. Washington stated,

"A few more of such flaming arguments, as were exhibited at Falmouth and Norfolk, added to the sound doctrine and unanswerable reasoning contained in the pamphlet Common Sense, will not leave numbers at a loss to decide upon the propriety of a separation."

In this pamphlet (which at times reads as a sermon) Paine makes this statement about government,

"Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness. . .Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil. . ."

But Tom Paine does not leave it there, but in fact, builds a well constructed case against monarchy, although wrong in its conclusion.

"Government by kings was first introduced into the world by the Heathens, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most prosperous invention the Devil ever set on the foot for the promotion of idolatry. The Heathens paid divine honors to their deceased kings, and the kings, and the Christian world hath improved on the plan, by doing the same to their living ones. How impious is the title of sacred majesty applied to a worm, who in the midst of his splendor is crumbling into dust!" [Common Sense, January 1776]

He correctly points out that Israel's desire for a king was wicked and wrong, but to go beyond and say that monarchy and its heirs are wicked as well is not what Scripture teaches. Tom Paine, failed to see (or kept hidden) that monarchy produced David, a man after God's own heart, and in that line of kings is our own king, the King of Kings, Jesus Christ, who will set up monarchy once more.

This pamphlet shows the success of the secularist ability to blend in religion to fit his cause. This man was in no way a Christian, but in fact was at best a deist, but more truthfully an antheist (a hater of God either way you slice it) who hated the church as much as he did monarchy. His own contemporaries, years after the Revolution were able to see his true colors when Paine published his "Age of Reason". In 1798 Jedidiah Morse attacked Paine's Age of Reason by stating:

"The existence of a God is boldly denied. Atheism and materialism are systematically professed. Reason and Nature are defied and adored. The Christian religion and its divine and blessed author, are not only disbelieved, rejected and condemned, but even abhorred."

Deism was the prevalent belief among the Forefathers, such as Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, and others. Many contemporaries of the Revolution understood that Christianity and religion were the binding elements that could bring together the secularists and the religious together. The secularists (who are the Deists) were children of the Enlightenment, who invoked the name of God, but whose god was in fact dead. (See "Benjamin Franklin's Beliefs", and "Thomas Jefferson's God is Reason)

". . . to its critics, deism was the epitome of hypocrisy. It masqueraded as religion but was thoroughly irreligious. Deists admitted the justice of religious claims, but they made religion irrelevant to contemporary life. The deists' god was dead. At best signs of his existence were found only in the distant past, not in the present." [Jon Butler, professor of Yale University, from "Awash in a Sea of Faith(1990)]

But what makes this topic more abhorrent, is that this deceit is still propagated today. In the so called Christian realm today, and heavily in the Home School movement, the concepts taught in Tom Paine's "Common Sense" are still taught as God's doctrine.

"It is more than a passing glance at our country or an occasional patriotic thought. America's Christian history should be a 'as seal upon thine heart'(Song of Sol. 8:6) because it pertains to Christ. . .Consider the many unusual aspects in the settling of America's thirteen colonies, the enduring and winning of the seven years War for Independence, and the establishing of the first Christian Constitution the world has ever known. All these 'human events' required a 'peculiar' people zealous for good works (Titus 2:14; I Peter 2:9)." [The Christian History of the American Revolution,Verna M. Hall, Foundation for American Christian Education, 1976, Introduction xxiii]

What a lie! These so called Christians are fooled by the pomp and circumstance that the forefathers used to show themselves as godly men! Invoking the name of God does not make one a Christian! 1 John states, "By this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments." The forefathers were disobedient to His commandments by rebelling against the king.

Yet, many "Christians" today do not think so:

"Consider the many acts of Parliament which were enacted against the colonies with little or no reason for doing so, except the hearts of Parliament and the king were hardened against America. As a result, the colonies had no other choice than to sadly and reluctantly defend their God-given rights under God's law of Liberty." [ibid.]

Yes, the colonist had a perfect choice, and that to submit and pay their taxes. Ironically, the colonists' disdain for paying taxes was not taken away under the new American government, but in fact doubled in many states. It was high taxes and foreclosures of homes that brought about Shay's rebellion following the heels of the Revolution. They were men following through with what Thomas Jefferson, and Samuel Adams had preached was their NATURAL right to do--defend their property from the authority and tyrant. But in this case they were called rebels!

"Christians" today are believing in the lie that the forefathers were godly-men defending God's law of liberty, which was, in fact, used for vice. They believe in the lie that these men gave us "political salvation", and that the colonists, "were coming from darkness into light, governmentaly speaking, for the first time in the history of mankind. . ."(Ibid,xxxv).

Yes, God's hand is in the history of America, as it is in all of HIS-story. For man, the ends do not justify the means, and those who were involved are still guilty for their sin. The American Revolution is just another example of how God makes vessels of wrath and vessels of honor, and ALL for his glory. Like Balaam, Judas, Pharaoh, and Saul, the forefathers were clearly vessels of wrath that God used to do His work. To Saul,(a man used by God) it was said,

Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the Lord? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed than the fat of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. (1 Samuel 15:22-23)

It was for disobedience and rebellion that God rejected Saul as king. If monarchy was so evil, as Paine would like to suggest, then why did God not end it? No, he continued it with David. There is no just cause for the Forefathers to opt for rebellion, when Scripture teaches otherwise. The rights they decried were so akin in Nature, were not rights that God gave them. All men are NOT created equal. Some men are created as vessels of wrath, others for honor(Romans 9f). Some blind and/or deaf, others with eyes to see, and ears to hear. God does as he so chooses, and has placed men in either submission or in rulership for his own glory.

Naturally the question should be asked, "Should Christians celebrate Indepdendance Day?". This would depend on the context that one may find themselves in (which is also based on personal conviction). The holiday in of itself is not sinful; being thankful for the creation of a nation is not sin. We can say this by looking at the example that Tom Pain himself pointed to-the establishment of the king for Israel. The desire for a king was wrong and evil, but God gave them exactly what they asked for and made Saul their king. Do we say then that a king is evil because of the first act? No (Tom Pain taught this error). Not only did God give them their king, but made that their form of government for years to come. God also placed godly men into the role of the king (i.e. David, Solomon), and it was this source of government that would rule many governments for centuries to come.

The creation of a democracy was by the hand of God, but the men who desired it; who on the human level caused it to happen, did evil in the eyes of God for rebelling against the authorithy. God created and allowed democracy and placed the authority, but that of course does not jusitfy man's role in it. Is democracy evil? Well, many aspects of it are (entirely different subject), but it is clear that God has chosen to use it for His greater good (and glory). Just as the Jews before us could be thankful for their kings and yes even celebrate their kings, so can we in our time be thankful and celebrate our own nation . The governing authority, be it a king or a democracy, be it a righteous one or an evil one, is there because God our creator placed it there. If it is good enough for God, then it is good enough for us.

Yes, we can be thankful for our nation, but no, we should not celebrate the men who brought it about. The event of Indepedance day was not a godly event, nor were the men godly themselves and what men propagate about our history today is not "godly" either. It is filled with lies and deception. We should celebrate the fact that we know the truth rather than the lies that most people hold on to. Of course, we must do as children of light do and expose the lies and deception that surround this celebration (the history and the doctrines that men still propagate). The holiday itself, is not evil (in of itself). What the men did (in rebellion) was evil. What God did (the birth of a nation) was good. Independence Day commerates both.

Well, there is my argument, what say you?

In His love,
al soto

[ December 31, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: No Deceit ]

 

[No Deceit]

Here is some intersting quotes:

Benjamin Franklin speaks before the House of Commons concerning paying taxes (1766).

Q: If the act [Stamp Act] should pass, requiring the American assemblies to make compensation to the sufferers, [of the 7 years war] and they should disobey it, and then the parliament should, by another act, lay an internal tax, would they then obey it?

A: The people will pay no internal tax; and I think an act to oblige the assemblies to make compensation is unnecessary, for I am of opinion, that as soon as the present heats are abated, they will take the matter into consideration, and, if it is right to be done, they will do it of themselves. . .

Q: Does the distinction between internal and external taxes exist in the words of the [Pennsylvania] charter?

A: No, I believe not.

Q: Then may they not, by the same interpretation, object to the parliament's right of external taxation?

A: They never have hitherto. Many arguments have been lately used here to show them that there is no difference, and that if you have no right to tax them internally, you have none to tax them externally, or make any other law to bind them. At present they do not reason so, but in time they may possibly be convinced by these arguments. . .

Q: If the stamp-act should be repealed, would it induce the assemblies of America to acknowledge the rights of parliament to tax them, and would they erase their resolutions?

A: No, never.

QBenjamin Franklin speaks before the House of Commons concerning paying taxes (1766).

Q: If the act [Stamp Act] should pass, requiring the American assemblies to make compensation to the sufferers, [of the 7 years war] and they should disobey it, and then the parliament should, by another act, lay an internal tax, would they then obey it?

A: The people will pay no internal tax; and I think an act to oblige the assemblies to make compensation is unnecessary, for I am of opinion, that as soon as the present heats are abated, they will take the matter into consideration, and, if it is right to be done, they will do it of themselves. . .

Q: Does the distinction between internal and external taxes exist in the words of the [Pennsylvania] charter?

A: No, I believe not.

Q: Then may they not, by the same interpretation, object to the parliament's right of external taxation?

A: They never have hitherto. Many arguments have been lately used here to show them that there is no difference, and that if you have no right to tax them internally, you have none to tax them externally, or make any other law to bind them. At present they do not reason so, but in time they may possibly be convinced by these arguments. . .

Q: If the stamp-act should be repealed, would it induce the assemblies of America to acknowledge the rights of parliament to tax them, and would they erase their resolutions?

A: No, never.

Q: Is there no means of obliging them to erase those resolutions?

A: None that I know of; they will never do it unless compelled by force of arms.

Q: Is there a power on earth that can force them to erase them?

A: No power, how great soever, can force men to change their opinions. . .

Q: What used to be the pride of the Americans?

A: To indulge in the fashions and manufactures of Great Britain.

Q: What is now their pride?

A: To wear their old clothes over again, till they can make new ones.

 

[No Deceit]

WAS BENJAMIN FRANKLIN A CHRISTIAN? I think NOT!

Benjamin Franklin's Beliefs

Reverend and Dear Sir,

. . .You desire to know something of my Religion. It is [not] the first time I have been questioned upon it. But I cannot take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavor in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed. I believe in One God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever Sect I meet them.

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive, that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Unbelievers in his Government of the World with any peculiar Marks of his Displeasure.

I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the Goodness of that Being in conducting myself prosperously thro' a long life, I have no doubt of it Continuance in the next, though without the smallest Conceit of meriting such Goodness. . .

[This letter was written to Ezra Stiles on March 9, 1790 five weeks before Franklin's death.]

 

[No Deceit]

Thomas Jefferson's God is Reason

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, If there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first the religion of your own country. Read the bible then, as you would read Livy or Tacitus."

"Do not be frightened from this inquiry by a fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you."

"Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven , and you are answerable not for the rightness but the uprightness of the decision. . ."

Jefferson's letter to his nephew, Peter Carr (August 10, 1787).

 

[KenH]

I thank God for the men who freed the Colonies from the grip of the king of England. I only wish the Southern War for Independence had been as successful.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by KenH:
I only wish the Southern War for Independence had been as successful.

You realize, of course, that, had the south seceded successfully, that reunification would likely have followed, and that it would at this point probably not have made a difference to most of us 21 century folks.

 

[fromtheright]

No Deceit,

My first question is why you have the American flag beside your name since you oppose the Revolution that produced it?

Secondly, how did you choose such a "handle" as NoDeceit, since your posts are nothing more than propaganda that relies on picking and choosing your way through history:

--Your quotation of I John 3:10 is simply disingenuous as a finger pointing at the Founders any more than any other man. None of us is righteous, no not one.

--Your quotation from an obscure history professor about military leaders regretting "some of their actions" is so nonspecific as to be worthless, it doesn't even point to the Revolution in particular.

--You should probably look farther back at the history that the Founders looked to, including Algernon Sidney's Discourses Concerning Government which relies on both Scripture and classical history in refuting the claim of the divine right of kings, as well as John Locke's Treatises Concerning Government, especially the first one which relies more specifically on the Bible.

Yes, there were excesses also, as you mention, but these excesses were not generally encouraged by the Revolution's leaders.

--Pointing to Paine's pamphlet is no less misleading. Paine helped to motivate resistance to the British Crown but he was also opposed, especially later, when his own attacks on Christianity were manifest in such as The Age of Reason.

Your statement that God gave us Hitler and by implication such evils as communism and abortion is frighteningly evil.

[ December 31, 2003, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Johnv:
had the south seceded successfully, that reunification would likely have followed

That is one quite possible scenario but I think it would have delayed the centralization of government power as the CSA would not have agreed to reunification without ironclad guarantees for States' rights. We would not have the bloated, Big Brother/Big Nanny central government to the extent that we have it today.

 

[Major B]

Since the rights of Englishmen had been settled by the English Bill of Rights of 1689, and since the king and his ministers had been violating those rights, the colonists had a perfect right, not to rebel against legal government, but to arise against a usurper who was violating those rights.


Excerpt

"...And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, ...

see http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/england.htm

 

[fromtheright]

No Deceit,

Another problem with your argument is the inescapable implication that tyranny is equal in God's eyes to freedom, which also implies that right = wrong, which itself means there is neither. Ordered liberty is the earthly mirror to the saved soul and is the dearest repose to the spirit.

As Major B's quote from the Declaration of Independence shows, our Founders did not seek a licentious state but a nation of laws.

 

[Major B]

Actually, that was from the English Bill of Rights of 1689. The following is from the Declaration--it is the lesser known part concerning justification.


Excerpt:


"The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

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. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. "


http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/declare.htm

 

[Major B]

And, let us not forget that from 1630 until 1763, successive monarchs and parliaments in Great Britain had regularly and increasingly left government of the colonies to the colonial legislatures, with the usually fairly compliant cooperation of the executives appointed by the Crown. This is called Benign, or Salutary, Neglect. The Crown had other fish to fry, and the Atlantic was a long distance to cross in those days. After 1763, the idiot ministers of George, such as Lord North, and George himself, (no rocket scientist either) tried to re-establish a control which their predecessors had given up. In the mind of the colonists, this was not a revolution or even a true rebellion, but a restoration of rights. Unlike every other revolution since, there was not great social upheaval nor a destruction of the system.

 

[fromtheright]

Major B,

Thanks for the correction but, boy, do I feel stupid! I knew the DoI's list was one of "He has"'s, but obviously didn't catch it.

But it is interesting, in opposition to No Deceit's thesis, that you have reinforced, by posting both, the argument that the colonists were simply seeking to protect their rights as Englishmen from usurpation.


No Deceit,

Major B raises an excellent point, in contrasting our revolution with that of the French. Do you see a parallel between ours and the French Revolution which was straightforwardly atheistic while our Founders were at least partially inspired by their preachers? Please then also square your answer with the point I earlier raised, that your argument implies an equation between freedom and tyranny in the mind of God.

[ January 01, 2004, 02:23 AM: Message edited by: fromtheright ]

 

[Major B]

From The Right,

In the US, as in England, the "powers that be," (Rom 13) are not the men who temporarily occupy the White House, the Senate, The House, The Court, or the requisite state and local offices. The "powers that be" are the people themselves.

 

[fromtheright]

Major B,

You raise another excellent point that I look forward to seeing No Deceit's attempt to answer. Ours and the British systems are ones of popular sovereignty. Jean Bodin, in the 14th century wrote “Only he is absolutely sovereign who, after God, acknowledges no one greater than himself.” which to me perfectly squares Romans 13 with what No Deceit sees as disobedience by the colonists, and by implication the Glorious Revolution. I must admit that No Deceit does seem to have an excellent knowledge of history but it seems he has read it with blinders on.

But the more I think about it, the more I am offended by his display of the American flag when he sees it as the symbol of a rebellion equal to Satan's.

 

[Major B]

Well, Manifest Destiny and Providence fit in as well. The thought of an inconsequential bunch of colonists with no army to speak of and no navy at all defeating the only superpower of the day is pretty amazing.

 

[fromtheright]

No (New?) Deceit's argument has an interesting modern implication, also. One of my biggest areas of interesting, deriving from my love of early American history and the writing and ratification of the Constitution in particular, has been the Establishment Clause and the jurisprudence which has turned the Clause on its head. ND's argument implies that we must now accept the Supreme Court as our new robed masters. I must admit I accept their authority under my view that judicial review is valid, at least to an extent, but I absolutely reject any inference that their opinions are Constitutionally correct. If the Supreme Court makes pronouncements contrary to the Constitution are we not to surrender to their authority on all things constitutional? By ND's arguments, though the Court has usurped power, or actually because they have done so, we have no choice but to acquiesce in, and hold as correct, that judicial tyranny.

 

[Major B]

Yeah, by his view, Dred Scott and Plessy were both correct--one overturned by the 13th amendment and one overturned by a later court.

I'm going to bed... Good conversation.