In any discussion about our nation’s political history and founding documents, I always start with the Declaration of Independence. It is THE foundational document for our way of government. Consider, in just a few pages it summarizes centuries of debate on political philosophy into a few exceedingly eloquent ideas and suppositions. This alone makes it unique. But also, it is the defining document of the core principles upon which our nation was founded. This means that ANY interpretation of the Constitution that is in disagreement with it is in fact in error and unconstitutional. To begin, we need to examine the times and the thinking that produced these documents and the men that forged them. This includes religious history, which is necessary to understanding the social backdrop of the events of the times.
Today, our education system attempts to explain the history of our nation in a religious vacuum. That leads to a distorted understanding of our history. You could not begin to examine and understand ancient China's history without understanding the influence of Confucianism or Buddhism. Similarly you could not get an accurate understanding of the history of India without an understanding of Buddhism and Hinduism and the influence they had.
In Clinton Rossiter’s 1953 book, The First American Revolution, he notes very well the role that religion and freedom of religion had in our march to liberty. And he says in this book: “Any interpretation of early American history that ignore religious motivation is essentially unsound.”
Keeping all of this in mind, let us look at some history of which we were not fully informed. We will uncover some aspects of history that should help to fill in some of the gaps in the modern understanding of our origins.
Six hundred years ago, Europe was still in a Dark Age. An understanding of what comprises a dark age and whether we are entering another one today is another topic. But Europe then was on the brink of what is called the Age of Reason, the Renaissance or the Enlightenment.
There were a number of factors and events that led to this great leap forward. Let us quickly look at a few of them that are relevant to our topic today and some resulting historical developments.
From the 1440's to the 1460's, Gutenberg developed his printing press.
In 1492, this continent was discovered, which would become the proving grounds for testing the new theories coming out of the Enlightenment.
1517 - 1521 saw the Reformation begin as a result of the writings and actions of Martin Luther.
The printing press allowed folks to afford relatively cheap copies of great literature, exposing them to great thinking and ideas. They were able to communicate these ideas in print, establishing great debates on a number of important topics.
That, coupled with the Reformation's resulting freedom to have access to the Bible, allowed it's words to be read and understood by the masses, and applied to these great debates.
A remarkable result of these events was the motivation to learn to read. Literacy grew during this period, and the general public gained a role in the ongoing accumulation and debate of ideas and knowledge.
As Reformation theology grew and became well defined, it added some specific points to the understanding of those involved in this exciting time of debate and discovery. Four of the more important contributions were:
Being created in the image of God meant among other things, that man was endowed with reason.
God and the created universe were orderly and consistent. Superstition no longer held sway. Truths could be confidently discovered.
The depravity of man, his fallen nature, was a very real thing that had to be reckoned with and accounted for.
The growing understanding that the "Divine Right of Kings", that had held people in servitude during the dark ages, was a deliberate misuse and abuse of the teachings to be found in the pages of scripture.
One of the men of reason and faith of this period was Galileo (1564-1642) who said "I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
Now, let us return to our timeline, with some of the results of what was started by these developments:
In 1581 an anonymous French Huguenot, using the pen name of Junius Brutus wrote a Latin dissertation entitled Vindiciae Contra Tyrannos, or "Defense of Liberty Against Tyranny". It exposed the divine right of kings' theory to the light of scripture. It was banned and burned, yet it spread like wildfire.
In 1620 Francis Bacon wrote "Novum Organum" that established the beginnings of the scientific method.
In 1625 Hugo Grotius wrote "The Law of War and Peace" establishing a discourse on natural law and the laws of nations. He is today known as the father of international and maritime law. His works are still used as the basis for international and maritime law. His understanding of law included the reformed theological understanding of the fallen nature of man, and the need for natural law and international law to take this into account.
In 1644 Samuel Rutherford wrote his famous work "Lex, Rex". In it, Rutherford dealt with a number of important ideas. These included presenting a theory of limited government and constitutionalism. He also added further refutation to the divine right of kings' theory and elucidated on the concept of the rule of law.
In 1689 John Locke wrote his "Second Treatise of Government" where he explored the idea of natural rights and the idea that government's main purpose should be to protect the rights of the people, such as the right to "life, liberty and property".
Finally, from 1765 to 1769, William Blackstone wrote his "Commentaries on the Law of England". In these he codified the notion that common law is natural law and that in England it could be equated with the laws and ethics of Christianity.
It is telling that in the years from 1765, when his first volume came out, to 1775, over 2500 copies were ordered and imported by people in the new world, where they were widely read, studied and debated. Interestingly, in another book of Clinton Rossiter’s, The Political Thought of the American Revolution, he noted that Britain must have seen our forefathers as a “race of legal historians”.
Today, we take most of these ideas for granted. Often without even knowing the names of the author's or their works that gave these novel concepts the light of day, let alone being familiar with the actual words of the discourses and debates where they wrangled over these difficult and dangerous ideas. And they were dangerous. Many works of that day were originally published anonymously, to escape arrest and execution.
But truth won out. We see that freedom, rights and liberty were being established in the minds of men. Tyranny and autocracy were undergoing limitation. Invention and discovery were the order of the day. Art, philosophy and science were truly in a Renaissance. In many places, especially in the colonies, productivity, prosperity and the standard of living were rising phenomenally. It was the beginnings of what became the Industrial Revolution. Historian and writer Carl Richard even called it the Golden Age of the Classics, and later wrote a book with that title, describing the extent of the Renaissance influence on early American culture.
But somewhere along the way, the colonies began to find themselves no longer enjoying all the fruits of these newfound ideals. In July of 1776, the colonies found themselves under conditions so intolerable that they found it necessary to declare their independence from England.
So, what went wrong?
In a word, corruption. As the one ultimately in charge, and thereby responsible for his government's actions, our Founders laid it all at the feet of King George III. Surprisingly, as one studies the literature of the time as well as various modern versions of history, one finds the problems of the colonies attributed to a number of possible sources all the way from the lowest bureaucrat back up to the king himself.
There were some who accused the Church of England of desiring once again to have its old powers, and looking to the colonies as a place where they might reinvigorate their previous authorities, bending the ears of bureaucrats for opportunity. There were indications that some wanted to exacerbate colonial problems in a desire to force the abdication of King George and to replace him with their own man (this was John Stuart, Lord Bute, direct descendant of King James VII, deposed in 1688). Others claim King George himself had designs to reclaim the old divine right as king to exercise greater autocratic rule. Others charged the Prime Minister and the members of parliament with graft and corruption seeking power and easy gain in the New World where it was still ripe for plucking.
One writer of the time stated:
"England is drained by taxes, and Ireland impoverished to almost the last farthing…America was the only remaining spot to which their oppression and extortion had not fully reached, and they considered her as a fallow field from which a large income might be drawn."
In The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn, printed in 1967, he stated
"It was in the context of the sources … that I began to see a new meaning in the phrases that I, like most historians, had readily dismissed as mere rhetoric and propaganda: 'slavery', 'corruption', 'conspiracy.' … They reflected so clearly the realities of life in an age in which monarchial autocracy flourished, in which the stability and freedom of England's 'mixed' constitution was a recent and remarkable achievement,… that I began to suspect that they meant something very real to both the writers and their readers. … In the end I was convinced that the fear of a comprehensive conspiracy against liberty throughout the English-speaking world - a conspiracy believed to have been nourished in corruption, … - lay at the heart of the Revolutionary movement."
Bailyn noted that the writings of Samuel and John Adams during this period revealed an opinion of living in conspiratorial times where high-ranking officials said one thing and did another, masking their ruthless intentions. Sadly, it is happening again today.
He goes on to add that as a result of being "challenged" to respond to the situation, our founders had to think through their own views on:
"major concepts and assumptions of eighteenth-century political theory. They reached - then, before 1776, in the debate on the problem of imperial relations - new territories of thought upon which would be built the commanding structures of the first state constitutions and of the Federal Constitution."
So, we see that our Declaration and our Constitution were born in the demands of conflict and necessity together with the rising tide of the enlightenment. Some see our form of government and the birth of our nation as the high-water mark, the end product of the Age of Reason. It made possible what Cleon Skousen has dubbed "The 5000 Year Leap."
Regardless of the specific directions the threats came from, the founders believed that liberty within the Empire itself was at risk, the Colonies being the immediate object of these onerous activities. Let us examine some of these concerns and ideals of our forefathers.
The reasoning and grievances enumerated in the Declaration show us many of these concerns. Consider these opening extracts from our founding document:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
And,
"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."
Let us review a few of their grievances and see if they might resonate with some of us today:
"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 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 imposing taxes on us without our consent."
"For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments."
In the closing statements the founders note that they:
"…have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury."
This is happening again today, being done by our own government. Citizens assembling in peaceful protest and getting insults and even assaults for their efforts! They were deemed rebels for believing in rule of law and rights coming from God.
In the opening statements the founders declared that government does not grant rights but is obligated to protect rights that come from God, using the immortal words:
"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."
And they close their declaration by:
"…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…"
They opened and closed by invoking God! We see the concept of the rule of law, a higher law that even kings and nations must abide by. We see the idea that this higher law and its higher power endow us with unalienable rights. As we will now see, they also believed that a response was demanded of them against any that would oppose these self-evident truths.
The following was submitted anonymously only as 'Pacificus' in the 1774 Pennsylvania Gazette:
"I would ask, who are the rebels… the governors who abuse the trust reposed in them, and exercise the delegated power of the people to their hurt; or the governed, who attempt to protect themselves against the abuse of that power?"
Look at the personal motto of Thomas Jefferson:
"Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God."
It is interesting to note that he borrowed it from Oliver Cromwell. The reader might find it illuminating to look up Cromwell's actions in April of 1653.
Among the signers of the Declaration, John Hancock’s signature in particular stands out from the rest. Consider these words attributed to him after signing it:
"There! His Majesty can now read my name without glasses. And he can double the reward on my head!"
John Adams said:
"I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy."
Then from a proclamation in 1776 of the General Court of Massachusetts:
"When kings, ministers, governors, or legislators … prostitute those powers to the purposes of oppression … they … become public enemies, and ought to be resisted."
Now, let us hear from two more of the signers:
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry
And,
"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Thomas Jefferson
I think we can safely say that they considered it a God given duty to resist corrupt forms of government.
Where does that leave us today? Many today are unaware of this great heritage and take for granted that which our founders deemed to be very fragile. Many blindly trust in government. I would suggest that you do a search on the term, “demicide”.
I personally have decided to provide copies of this great document to anyone who will take it. My goal is to motivate people to rediscover our founding documents for themselves, to read them and see if anything still rings true for them today and stirs their heart to a greater public awareness. I believe we must strive to become self-educated on these important matters, as our own culture and system has left us largely ignorant of the significance of our heritage.
Two centuries ago, they found their very form of government threatened. Is there a parallel today? Here are a few more appropriate quotes.
First, from an unnamed writer in 1765, speculating about the concerns he was seeing even then:
"If a proud arbitrary, selfish, and venal spirit of corruption should ever reign … and diffuse itself through all ranks in the nation; if lucrative posts be multiplied without necessity, and pensioners multiplied without bounds; if the policy of governing be by bribery and corruption, and the trade and manufactures of the nation be disregarded and trampled under foot; if all offices be bought and sold at a high and extravagant price…; the subjects in all quarters must be hard squeezed with the iron arms of oppression."
Anything in that sound familiar? Today, we see our great industries being brought under federal control and even dismantled in some cases. Corruption in our government is accepted as the norm. We see the multiplication of entitlements and bureaucratic offices, and an incredible burden being laid on the productive members of our society. We see our Constitution being disregarded and ignored.
And since the time when I first wrote this, it has gotten much worse. We now have essentially a one-party system. A mostly one-party news and entertainment system, a mostly one-party legislative branch, a one-party medical system with a one-party government medical bureaucracy for oversight, a one-party justice system, and more. If you belong to the right party, you can protest, loot, riot and do millions of dollars of damage, even destroying government buildings, and be exonerated. Belong to the wrong party and you can be called a terrorist if you protest, or worse, taken away and jailed without due process.
Let us look again at that famous 2nd paragraph of the Declaration:
"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."
Think on this. More than once they refer to God Himself as the ultimate source of rights and appeal. This was not just flowery language to them. They meant it.
We need to lead people to recognize this missing spiritual element of our heritage, without being partisan about it. At root, people need to think about and investigate the significance that our founders gave to the idea that our rights are from God. Is it still relevant today? Does it matter? I say, yes! Consider these words from John Rushdoony in “This Independent Republic”:
"If sovereignty resides in God and is only held ministerially by men, then the basic responsibility of ruler and ruled is to God, who is also the source of freedom. But if sovereignty resides in the state, whether a monarchy or democracy, man has no appeal beyond the law of the state, and no source of ethics apart from it. He is totally responsible to that order and has only those rights which the state chooses to confer upon him."
Clinton Rossiter, again in The Political Thought of the American Revolution, made the following summarization:
"Resistance, the extreme form of which is revolution, is not so much the right as the solemn, unpleasant duty of a betrayed people."
Where do we find ourselves today? What might we expect of the future? How will we respond?
You must decide for yourself. In closing, I would like you to consider these stirring words from our third President, writ large in stone at the Jefferson Memorial:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever."
Do we tremble? Should we?