Was the American Revolution a Sin?

[poncho]

And ask him why Caesar would want Paul dead if Paul was preaching obedience to Caesar.

Here's the answer. Paul was promoting another form of government that threatened Caesar's power.

 

[Bible-boy]

How do you determine if it should be war or acceptance of the government. Also show me where Christ said war is all right.

Have ya not read Rev. 19?

 

[Bible-boy]

George III was being King. A bad King is still a King.



Being under British rule made the colonists subjects of the Crown. Whether they were justly treated or not has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

Nonsense. The British government had in place documents, just like the U.S. government has its founding documents, that dictated the laws as to how the subjects of the Crown were to be treated (their rights under the law). The British government chose to ignore those documents and deny those right to a specific portion of its subjects (the American Colonies). Thus, the British government violated its own laws and when asked repeatedly to return and adhere to those laws the British government chose to ignore the rightful pleas of its American Colonial subjects. Therefore, the tyrant forfited the right to rule the people according to the documented laws of the nation and freed the Colonists to establish a new and better government.

Ask yourself if the American Revolutionary War was a sin before God, how it is that a tiny ragtag bunch of colonial militia were able to defeat the most powerful military on the planet at that time?

Seriously?? Every time you win it's a sign of God's approval?

No one is making that claim. We just said that from emperical observation of the historical facts it certainly seems to be the case in this particular instance.

What if you cheated, breaking His laws in order to achieve victory?

Hypothetical question that does not apply to the discuss because no one in the American Revolutionary War "cheated" so this is a red herring argument.

Riiiight, 1812. When America invaded the Canadian colonies. Sure, that was absolutely an attempt by Britain to subjugate the United States.

I think you must mean when the British kept impressing American Merchent Sailors, on the high seas, into the British Navy based on the claim that they were still really British subjects. Or perhaps the fact that they sailed up the Potomac River into Washington D.C. and burn the White House, or into Baltimore Harbor and bombed Fort McHenry. Clearly those things had nothing to do with trying to keep America under subjugation, right?

 

[Analgesic]

Nonsense. The British government had in place documents, just like the U.S. government has its founding documents, that dictated the laws as to how the subjects of the Crown were to be treated (their rights under the law). The British government chose to ignore those documents and deny those right to a specific portion of its subjects (the American Colonies). Thus, the British government violated its own laws and when asked repeatedly to return and adhere to those laws the British government chose to ignore the rightful pleas of its American Colonial subjects. Therefore, the tyrant forfited the right to rule the people according to the documented laws of the nation and freed the Colonists to establish a new and better government.

Huzzah!

Finally, a legitimate point! If you peruse my above posts, you'll notice that I never argued that the American Revolution was a sin -- I simply pointed out that the arguments being given as to why it was not a sin were extremely poor.

There are, in my opinion, two questions at issue:

1) Was the American Revolution in fact a "revolution"? In other words, as you suggest, if the British government's legitimacy rested upon contracted obligations which were unfulfilled, then in fact the British government, by its own actions, may have released the colonies from any such obligations as subjects. Of course, this raises the important question of what criteria are necessary to determine whether there has been a breach in the political contract, but it's absolutely a legitimate point of inquiry.

2) If the American Revolution was, in fact, a "revolution", is such an action ever condoned by God, and, if so, what are the criteria upon which His blessing is bestowed?

Ask yourself if the American Revolutionary War was a sin before God, how it is that a tiny ragtag bunch of colonial militia were able to defeat the most powerful military on the planet at that time?

If you want historical explanations, there's always google. And books.

No one is making that claim. We just said that from emperical observation of the historical facts it certainly seems to be the case in this particular instance.

And I maintain that historical happenstances in a fallen world are a poor means of determining God's law. The relevant question is whether or not violent revolution (in the case of the second issue from above) is ever advocated in His Word.

Hypothetical question that does not apply to the discuss because no one in the American Revolutionary War "cheated" so this is a red herring argument.

No, you misunderstand my point, which was that success doesn't equal heavenly approbation. Surely apparent success can occur from actions which were outside God's perfect will.

I think you must mean when the British kept impressing American Merchent Sailors, on the high seas, into the British Navy based on the claim that they were still really British subjects. Or perhaps the fact that they sailed up the Potomac River into Washington D.C. and burn the White House, or into Baltimore Harbor and bombed Fort McHenry. Clearly those things had nothing to do with trying to keep America under subjugation, right?

America declared war on Great Britain, invading Upper Canada long before the British/Canadian Settlers retaliated by attacking Washington and Baltimore. Sorry, but you don't get to start a war by invading somebody and then claim that they're trying to re-subjugate you when they retaliate.

 

[NiteShift]

Was the American Revolution in fact a "revolution"?

At the time, it was considered to be a war of independence. Actually more of a civil war. Does it really matter if it was a revolution or not, or which terminology you use?

In other words, as you suggest, if the British government's legitimacy rested upon contracted obligations which were unfulfilled, then in fact the British government, by its own actions, may have released the colonies from any such obligations as subjects. Of course, this raises the important question of what criteria are necessary to determine whether there has been a breach in the political contract, but it's absolutely a legitimate point of inquiry.

Yes, and from the American point of view, as British subjects, we were entitled to representation in Parliament in the same way that Scotland was.

And I maintain that historical happenstances in a fallen world are a poor means of determining God's law.

"I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant". I King 11:11

"Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians" Daniel 5:28

"The Lord does whatever He pleases in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all the depths." Psalm 135:6

Hmm, maybe there is no happenstance?

It is not always possible to know God’s will in each circumstance. Heck, there are instances in Acts where Christians even cast lots to determine His will. Many Americans prayed for guidance before taking up arms. Maybe they were wrong. But God has certainly blessed us in all ways for over two hundred years.

America declared war on Great Britain, invading Upper Canada long before the British/Canadian Settlers retaliated by attacking Washington and Baltimore. Sorry, but you don't get to start a war by invading somebody and then claim that they're trying to re-subjugate you when they retaliate.

The Lexington & Concord battles had occurred, and the British had Boston under siege prior to the expedition into upper Canada. It was a stalemate so far, and it’s not as if this were the start of the war. It was an attempt to strike at British forces where they could and it was thought that the colonists in Canada would rally to the cause.

 

[Analgesic]

At the time, it was considered to be a war of independence. Actually more of a civil war. Does it really matter if it was a revolution or not, or which terminology you use?

I'm certainly not interested in playing semantics, but I certainly think there's an important difference between war and revolution. Clearly God has historically condoned war under certain conditions, but I'm not aware of any instance in which the Lord commanded political rebellion.

Yes, and from the American point of view, as British subjects, we were entitled to representation in Parliament in the same way that Scotland was.

Exactly. This raises two questions:

1) Was the American view correct? That is, were the colonies actually entitled by government contract or treaty to representation in Parliament?

2) If they indeed were, is the breach of such a promise sufficient to dissolve the government's legitimate authority?

If the answer to both these questions is in the affirmative, then the matter ceases to be one of rebellion.

I will surely rend the kingdom from thee, and will give it to thy servant". I King 11:11

"Your kingdom is divided and given to the Medes and Persians" Daniel 5:28

"The Lord does whatever He pleases in heaven and on earth, in the seas and all the depths." Psalm 135:6

Hmm, maybe there is no happenstance?

By "happenstances" I simply meant "circumstances which come to pass", and a quick check of the dictionary confirms that it was a poor choice of word on my part. I meant to imply nothing felicitous about such circumstances and was only stating that the ends, no matter how successful they might appear, are a poor means of adjudicating God's will. A thorough examination of Scripture is a much stronger foundation for understanding his law.

It is not always possible to know God’s will in each circumstance. Heck, there are instances in Acts where Christians even cast lots to determine His will. Many Americans prayed for guidance before taking up arms. Maybe they were wrong. But God has certainly blessed us in all ways for over two hundred years.

Indeed, though I would modify "blessed us in all ways" to read "blessed us in all sorts of ways".

The Lexington & Concord battles had occurred, and the British had Boston under siege prior to the expedition into upper Canada. It was a stalemate so far, and it’s not as if this were the start of the war. It was an attempt to strike at British forces where they could and it was thought that the colonists in Canada would rally to the cause.

Forgive me, but I'm not familiar with the Lexington & Concord battles in the War of 1812.

I'm quite positive, however, that America was the nation which declared war and initiated the conflict by invading the Canadian colonies near Detroit. British forces certainly did not have Boston under siege before this time, though you're quite right that the American expectation was that their invading force would be joined by a significant portion of the populace.

 

[NiteShift]

Exactly. This raises two questions:

1) Was the American view correct? That is, were the colonies actually entitled by government contract or treaty to representation in Parliament? 2) If they indeed were, is the breach of such a promise sufficient to dissolve the government's legitimate authority?

If the answer to both these questions is in the affirmative, then the matter ceases to be one of rebellion.

You must be a lawyer.

The British saw good reason to allow Scottish representation, regardless of any legal hair-splitting. Doesn't that set a precedent in a situation like this?

America would have almost surely remained part of the British Empire had King George relented. American representation in Parliament would have cost him very little, and the alternative was that a large portion of his North American empire was lost to him.

BTW, Gen Howe, who was sent to enforce King George’s refusal, was in fact sympathetic to the American point of view.

Forgive me, but I'm not familiar with the Lexington & Concord battles in the War of 1812.

Were we not discussing the War of Independence?

I'm quite positive, however, that America was the nation which declared war and initiated the conflict by invading the Canadian colonies near Detroit. British forces certainly did not have Boston under siege before this time, though you're quite right that the American expectation was that their invading force would be joined by a significant portion of the populace.

Again, weren’t we discussing the War for Independence? Boston was indeed under siege by British forces at the time of Gen. Phillip Schuyler’s abortive assault on Montreal.

As for the war of 1812, there were some very legitimate reasons for a declaration of war.

 

[Palatka51]

1) Was the American Revolution in fact a "revolution"? In other words, as you suggest, if the British government's legitimacy rested upon contracted obligations which were unfulfilled, then in fact the British government, by its own actions, may have released the colonies from any such obligations as subjects. Of course, this raises the important question of what criteria are necessary to determine whether there has been a breach in the political contract, but it's absolutely a legitimate point of inquiry.

They did, after George the third died.

If you want historical explanations, there's always google. And books.

And I maintain that historical happenstances in a fallen world are a poor means of determining God's law. The relevant question is whether or not violent revolution (in the case of the second issue from above) is ever advocated in His Word.

Just can't give God the glory can you!?
Historical happenstance?
How arrogant and condescending you are.

No, you misunderstand my point, which was that success doesn't equal heavenly approbation. Surely apparent success can occur from actions which were outside God's perfect will.

Again arrogant reasoning.

The Star Spangled Banner Lyrics
By Francis Scott Key 1814



Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Again I say, George III's motive was resubjugation in 1812.

America declared war on Great Britain, invading Upper Canada long before the British/Canadian Settlers retaliated by attacking Washington and Baltimore. Sorry, but you don't get to start a war by invading somebody and then claim that they're trying to re-subjugate you when they retaliate.

Nope, Nite-Shift nailed it.:thumbs:

 

[NiteShift]

Nope, Nite-Shift nailed it.

Thanks Palatka, though I'll admit that I missed the switch to a different war. Sailed right past me.

 

[Analgesic]

You must be a lawyer.

Nope, but I spent five years studying political theory.

The British saw good reason to allow Scottish representation, regardless of any legal hair-splitting. Doesn't that set a precedent in a situation like this?

I think it's debatable whether the Scottish situation was much alike, but even if it was, the most that could be said would be that it would be "fair" to treat the colonies similarly. But, of course, simply being unfair is no Biblical ground for revolution. So then the only way out would be if perhaps a promise has been made by the Crown to the colonies that they would be treated like Scotland. This would raise a plethora of additional questions, but I'm not aware of any such promise being made.

America would have almost surely remained part of the British Empire had King George relented. American representation in Parliament would have cost him very little, and the alternative was that a large portion of his North American empire was lost to him.

BTW, Gen Howe, who was sent to enforce King George’s refusal, was in fact sympathetic to the American point of view.

Agreed. It's also interesting to note for comparisson that the French colonies did in fact have representation.

Were we not discussing the War of Independence?



Again, weren’t we discussing the War for Independence? Boston was indeed under siege by British forces at the time of Gen. Phillip Schuyler’s abortive assault on Montreal.

As for the war of 1812, there were some very legitimate reasons for a declaration of war.

While the discussion in general was regarding the American Revolution, this particular thread originated in post #15.

You're entirely correct with respect to the events of the Revolutionary War.

 

[Analgesic]

They did, after George the third died.

A King's death doesn't change any legal obligations whatsoever. One is subject to the Crown, not the person who wears it.

Just can't give God the glory can you!?
Historical happenstance?
How arrogant and condescending you are.

I already noted and agreed with NiteShift's correction of my use of "happenstance".

I believe in giving God the glory in every circumstance. Whether or not the Revolutionary War was Biblically justified has absolutely nothing to do with giving God glory. It has nothing to do with history. It has to do with what his Word says.

Again arrogant reasoning.

How on earth is it arrogant to state that worldly success doesn't equal heavenly approbation?

The Star Spangled Banner Lyrics
By Francis Scott Key 1814



Oh, say can you see by the dawn's early light
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming?
And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
Oh, say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! Oh long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Again I say, George III's motive was resubjugation in 1812.



Nope, Nite-Shift nailed it.:thumbs:

And how exactly does quoting from the Star-Spangled Banner demonstrate the motive of the British government in 1812?

 

[NiteShift]

I think it's debatable whether the Scottish situation was much alike, but even if it was, the most that could be said would be that it would be "fair" to treat the colonies similarly. But, of course, simply being unfair is no Biblical ground for revolution. So then the only way out would be if perhaps a promise has been made by the Crown to the colonies that they would be treated like Scotland. This would raise a plethora of additional questions, but I'm not aware of any such promise being made.

At the time that the colonial charters were written, each included a guarantee that those who settled in America, and their heirs, would have "all the rights and immunities of free and natural subjects."

So the reasoning was that Americans were entitled to representation in Parliament, just as any free Englishman was.

 

[Palatka51]

And how exactly does quoting from the Star-Spangled Banner demonstrate the motive of the British government in 1812?

It shows the dedication, of the defenders of the new nation, to their freedom from tyrannical aggression and their grateful acknowledgment to almighty God for His blessing. Which you have failed to give God credit for. As such your posts in this thread are very offensive.

You belittle the blood, of God fearing men, shed for the founding of this nation.

You reject every account given for the founding father's reasons for dissolving the connection with the Crown.

You have said that it was against God and therefore a sin.

"Happenstance" you have said. IOW, they got lucky.

You need to repent and give God the glory for the blessings of liberty that we enjoy here.

 

[Analgesic]

At the time that the colonial charters were written, each included a guarantee that those who settled in America, and their heirs, would have "all the rights and immunities of free and natural subjects."

So the reasoning was that Americans were entitled to representation in Parliament, just as any free Englishman was.

Ah, now that's very interesting indeed! That's precisely the sort of promise which might be considered to, in its breach, remove any obligation to the Crown as subjects. It looks like a quote... Would you mind sharing your source? I'd like to take a read through the charter.

 

[Analgesic]

It shows the dedication, of the defenders of the new nation, to their freedom from tyrannical aggression and their grateful acknowledgment to almighty God for His blessing. Which you have failed to give God credit for. As such your posts in this thread are very offensive.

You belittle the blood, of God fearing men, shed for the founding of this nation.

You reject every account given for the founding father's reasons for dissolving the connection with the Crown.

You have said that it was against God and therefore a sin.

"Happenstance" you have said. IOW, they got lucky.

You need to repent and give God the glory for the blessings of liberty that we enjoy here.

You've ignored all of my points, introduced extraneous arguments, accused me of not giving God glory, and now resort to grossly distorting what I've said. I invite other members to carefully examine this thread from the beginning.

You've stated, without historical evidence, that King George was motivated to re-subjugate the colonies in 1812 despite the indisputable historical facts of America's declaration of war and initial invasion of the Canadian colonies.

I have repeatedly stated that my use of "happenstance" was poor and did not convey my intent. I immediately agreed with NiteShift's initial questioning of it's validity, and yet you continue to bring it up to suggest I meant "they got lucky". I do not know how I could make my intention any clearer than I already have.

I have unequivocally stated that I believe God is glorified in all circumstances, and yet you state that I "must repent and give God the glory" for such liberty. Clearly this is included under "all circumstances".

I never once said that "it was against God and therefore a sin". In fact, I specifically stated this in post 24 of this thread. I have rejected every one of your spurious explanations, while simultaneously carrying on an excellent discussion with NiteShift.

When did I ever belittle the blood of God-fearing men? When did I ever belittle the blood of the founders who gave their lives? You will find I made no such statements whatsoever.

I find myself unsure of whether to call you a liar or fool.

 

[Bible-boy]

America can not declare war without the approval of Congress. So in the Congressional Declaration of War for the War of 1812 what were/are the reasons stated for making said declaration of war? I'm a bit rusty on my War of 1812 history (it has only been 25+ years since I studied the subject in high school). However, I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the fact that the England was impressing American Merchant Sailors on the high seas into the British Navy to help them in their fight against Napoleon. They did this based on the claim that American Sailors were really still British subjects.

 

[NiteShift]

Ah, now that's very interesting indeed! That's precisely the sort of promise which might be considered to, in its breach, remove any obligation to the Crown as subjects. It looks like a quote... Would you mind sharing your source? I'd like to take a read through the charter.

Here is the Virginia charter LINK

An excerpt -

"Also we do, for Us, our Heirs, and Successors, DECLARE, by these Presents, that all and every the Persons being our Subjects, which shall dwell and inhabit within every or any of the said several Colonies and Plantations, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born within any of the Limits and Precincts of the said several Colonies and Plantations, shall HAVE and enjoy all Liberties, Franchises, and Immunities, within any of our other Dominions, to all Intents and Purposes, as if they had been abiding and born, within this our Realm of England, or any other of our said Dominions. "

*
Edited to add another link

All Charters

 

[Bible-boy]

Just as I remembered the Impressing of American Merchant Marines (Sailors) was one of the main causes that resulted in the 1812 declaration of war. Also the idea of American expansionism into Canada being a cause is no longer supported by most notable historians. See this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

The idea that one cause of the war was United States expansionism or desire for Canadian land was much discussed among historians before 1940, but is rarely cited by experts any more. Some Canadian historians propounded the notion in the early 20th century, and it survives among most Canadians.

Madison and his advisors believed that conquest of Canada would be easy and that economic coercion would force the British to come to terms by cutting off the food supply for their West Indies colonies. Furthermore, possession of Canada would be a valuable bargaining chip. Frontiersmen demanded the seizure of Canada not because they wanted the land, but because the British were thought to be arming the Indians and thereby blocking settlement of the west. As Horsman concludes, "The idea of conquering Canada had been present since at least 1807 as a means of forcing England to change her policy at sea. The conquest of Canada was primarily a means of waging war, not a reason for starting it."Hickey flatly states, "The desire to annex Canada did not bring on the war." Brown (1964) concludes, "The purpose of the Canadian expedition was to serve negotiation not to annex Canada." Burt, a leading Canadian scholar, agrees completely, noting that Foster, the British minister to Washington, also rejected the argument that annexation of Canada was a war goal.

 

[NiteShift]

America can not declare war without the approval of Congress. So in the Congressional Declaration of War for the War of 1812 what were/are the reasons stated for making said declaration of war? I'm a bit rusty on my War of 1812 history (it has only been 25+ years since I studied the subject in high school). However, I'm pretty sure it had something to do with the fact that the England was impressing American Merchant Sailors on the high seas into the British Navy to help them in their fight against Napoleon. They did this based on the claim that American Sailors were really still British subjects.

Also there was the matter of Britain not abandoning their garrisons on the Great Lakes as had been agreed to after the War of Independence.

 

[Analgesic]

NiteShift, thank you very much. That was an excellent read and provides a strong basis for an argument that any obligation on the part of the colonies was dissolved by the Crown's failure to hold up its end of the bargain.

I certainly agree with both your and Bible-boy's points on the War of 1812.