Post on 13-Apr-2018
7/27/2019 1995 Issue 5 - The Causes of the War of Independence Part 2, The Constitutional and Legal Issues Part 2 - Couns
1/4
THE CAVSES FOR THE
WAR OF INDEPENDENCE
(II)
The Constitutional and
Legal Issues (II)
It is
vital that we understand
the relationship that existed
between the colonies and the
King.
They
had
no legal
relationship with England orwith
the English Parliament. They
were ruled by the King and their
own legislatures. They had their
charters from the King. There
was therefore no connection with
England at all other than sharing
the same monarch. A number of
things need to be remembered:
1.
Each of the colonies was
self-governing. Each had their
own legislaturesand each
i ~ e
of
legislation was subject to the
King's veto.
The constitutions ofthe several
provinces, knew only the king.
and the provincial representative
bodies, and had no more reference
to the parliamentof (jreat-Britain,
than to the parliaments of France,
. .
The
pretended
right
of
parliament to prescribe laws and
taxes for them, was an arbitral)'
assumption, against which the
colonies according to all legal
principles, might proceed exactly
as(jreatBritain would have done,
had any of the provincial
assemblies undertaken, with the
concurrence of the king. to levy
taxes in England or Scotland, or to
overthrow the municipal
constitution
of
London
or
Weshninster, as the parliament
had overthrown the charter of
MassachusettsBay. ((jentz, op.
cit.,
pp.
41,42)
2. After
the
(jlorious
Revolution in 1688, the right
of Parliament over
aU
theaffairs
of government
was
viewed as
being
nearly absolute ,
Parliament, rather than the King.
became the great Leviathan.
When the colonies began to grow
and prosper, the idea began to
grow that such
an
important part
of the British empire could not be
allowed independence from
Parliament.
3.
George III in effect
conceded as much
and
by so
dOing,
broke his
contract
with
the colonies. Parliament had no
legal authority over any of the
colonies and yet was claiming
absolute authority
and
exercising
it. King (jeorge, had become a
covenant-breaking
tyrant
in
cahoots
with a maniac Parliament.
They were the revolutionaries,
not the colonists.
4. From the
beginning, the
colonists
viewed
the
war
as
an
effort to defend themselves
against unwarranted invasion
and
unlawful tyranny.
The American revolution was
from beginning
to
end, on the
part of the Americans, merely a
.defensive revolution . . . The
British government began the
revolution in America by resolves,
for which they could
shew
no
right, the colonies endeavored by
all means in their power
to
repel
them. The colonies wished to
maintain their old constitution;
the govemment destroyed it.
The
resistance, which the colonies
opposed against the mother
counll)', was, in evel)' period of
this unhappy contest, exactly
commensurate with the attack;
the total separation
was not
resolved,
until
the
utter
impossibility of preserving the
ancient condition
was
proved
llle revolution of America was,
therefore, in evel)' sense of the
word, a revolution of necessity:
England, alone, had by violence
Mayl
June,
1995
l
THE COUNSEL of
Chalcedon l 11
7/27/2019 1995 Issue 5 - The Causes of the War of Independence Part 2, The Constitutional and Legal Issues Part 2 - Couns
2/4
effected it:
America had
contended ten years long, not
against England, but against the
revolution: America sought not a
revolution; she yielded to it,
compelled by necessity,
not
because she wished to extort a
better condition than she had
before enjoyed, but because she
wished to avert a worse one,
prepared for her. (Cientz,
op.
cit.,
pp 52,53,62,63
6.
Thus, when the colonies
declared their independence,
they
were
not
declaring their
independence
from EnglaJ;ld
they were never a part of
England), they were declaring
their independence from the King.
It
is for this reason that the
Declaration of Independence
never
mentions
Parliament
directly. There are only two veiled
references
to
Parliament in the
final draft of the document:
He [the Kingl had combined
with others [Parliamentl to
subject
us
to a jurisdiction foreign
to
our
constitution
and
unacknowledged by our laws,
giving
his assent to
their
pretended acts
of
legislation. . .
We
have
warned
them [our
British brethrenl
...
of attempts by
their legislature
to
extend
an
unwarrantable jurisdiction over
us.
In the recommendation of the
committee
who
submitted the
draft of the Declaration to the
convention, these words were
included to elaborate on their
meaning, that in constituting
indeed
0\11 several forms of
govemment, we hadadoptedone
common king, thereby laying a
foundation for perpetual league
and amity with them [the British
brethrenl, but that submission
to
their parliament was no part
of
our constitution. These words
were rejected by the Congress
and were not included in the final
draft. (see1ames
M.
Bulman,
t
s
Their Right,
p. 24
Historian Carl Becker
interprets this section of the
Declarationand elaborates on the
meaning:
We
have our own legislatures
to govem
us,
just
as
our
British
.brethren have their legislature.
The British Parliament, which
is
their legislature, has no authority
over us,
any
more
than
our
legislatures have authority over
them. We do not mention the
British
Parliament
in
our
Declaration of Independence
because we are not declaring
independence of an authority to
which
we have neVer been
subject. We are declaring
ourselves independent ofthe
king,
because
t
is to
the king only that
we have ever been subject; and in
dissolVing our connection with
the king we separate from the
British empire, because it
is
only
through the king that we have
ever had any connection with the
British empire. This connection
we voluntarily entered
into
by
submitting
ourselves to the
sovereign head of the empire
Asa
free
peoplewe have fonnerly
professed allegiance
to
the
king
as
the fonnal head of the
empire; as
a
free
people we now renounce
that allegiance. (quoted by
Bulman, p. 32)
Benjamin Franklin, writing in
12
" THE COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon " May
June,
1995
1770, concurred with this
opinion:
That the colonies originally
were constituted distinct
States,
and intendedto be continuedsuch,
is clear to me
through
consideration of their original
Charters,
and
the whole conduct
ofthe Crown and nation towards
them until the Restoration. Since
that period the parliament . . . has
usurped
an
authority of making
laws for them, which before t
had not.
We
have for some time
submitted to that usurpation,
partly through ignorance
and
inattention, and partly
from
our
weakness and inability
to
contend.
Franklin went on
to
say that
he wished that such phrases as
the
supreme authority of
Parliament and the like would
not
be used
at all.
Such
,expressions, he said, tend
to
confinna claim of subjects in one
part of the king's .dominion
to
be
sovereign
over their
fellow
subjects in another part of his
dominion,
when
in truth they
have no such right, and their claim
is
founded only in usurpation, the
several states having equal rights
and
liberties,
and
being only
connected, as England
and
Scotland
Were
before the union,
by having
one
common sovereign,
the King. (quoted in Bulman,
p.
29
It is
in this context that the
cry
No
taxation
without
representation must be
understood. The colonists were
not saying that until they had
representatives in the British
Parliament the Parliament could
7/27/2019 1995 Issue 5 - The Causes of the War of Independence Part 2, The Constitutional and Legal Issues Part 2 - Couns
3/4
not tax them. They had no right
to
representation in the British
Parliament since they were not
part of England. Their point was
that since they were not part of
England, Parliament had no more
rightto pass a
tax
upon them than
the parliament of Spain had
to
tax
the people of England. Or,
in
the
words
of one colonial apologist,
they have no more right to tax us
than they
do the citizens of the
moon.
defined
as
a refusal to obey
({od. To obey the unlawful
commands of a ruler is rebellion
against ({od.
3. Resistance against a
tyrannicall'uler is obedience
to
({od.
This line of reasoning pervades
the
writing, thinking, and
speaking of this period. The
influence of Vindiciae is
Fairfax county, Virginia in 1744.
The meeting was chaired by
({eorge Washington. The
men
assembled passed twenty-four
resolutions which set forth the
legality of the colonial resistance.
The same
is
true of the
Mecklenberg County Resolves.
Many
more things could be
mentioned
to show
that the
American war for Independence
was not revolutionary.
In
their view, King
({eorge
now
had
become a tyrant, and
as
such, forfeited all right
he
had to their
submission.
He
had
broken the covenantand
The f ith of the founders
must
be
restored to this
n tion if we re
to
survive
It
was
a principled
defense against Statist
absolutism.
If this
is
so however,
one must
ask
why
modem histories of this
period persist in seeking
to portray
it
as
a
French-type revolutionl
The answer surely lies
to continue to subject
themselves to him and
the pretended
jurisdiction
of the British
Parliament, would be to deny
(jod's covenant with them. Their
views were shaped largely by a
work that today
is
unknown
to
aU
but a few, Vindiciae Contra
Tyrranos, writtenbyanunknown
French Huguenotauthorin 1579.
John Adams says that this book
was one of the most influential
books in America on the
eve
of
the war.
Among
the things set
forth
in
this work are the following, which
became gUiding principles to the
colonists:
1. The ruler cannot
command
anything contrary to
the Law
of ({od.
Anyrulerwho
does so seeks to be like ({od and
forfeits his right to the obedience
of his subjects.
2. Rebellion is properly
in the liberty they
purch sed for us,
pervasive. (It
is
a peculiarly
striking commentary on modem
historians that this book
is
hardly
evermentioned. R.J. Rushdoony
observes, It is
revelatory
of
modem
historiography that the role of
Vindiciae
Contra
Tyrannos
is
rarely mentioned, whereas
Thomas Paine's works always are,
in accounts of the American
Revolution.
The reason is
obvious: Vindiciae is thoroughly
Calvinistic Paine isanti-Christian
anda part ofthe intellectual milieu
of the French Revolution and of
the modem university. And, for
purposes ofthe liberal midrash of
history, the former is not
acceptable. This
Independent
Republic, p. 25)
Another important document
which has also been largely
ignored, is the Fairfax County
Resolves which were passed in
in the modem antagonism toward
the principles that were defended.
Constitutionalism, biblical
authority, the preeminence of
({od's law, are aU out of vogue in
today s revolutionary
environment.
Modem
revolutionaries seek
to
remake the Founding Fathers
into blood brothers
and
gain
converts
to the religion of
revolution from our children at
the same time. Thus, Common
Sense is heralded, Vindiciae
Contl a Tyrannos,ignored.
Revolutionary rhetoric is repeated,
constitutiona
I
arguments
purposely omitted. The idea of
limited government is denounced
and the doctrine of Leviathan
praised.
Do you see the pattern herel
Modems have embraced the faith
of the French revolutionaries
and
May June, 1995
l
THE COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon l' 13
7/27/2019 1995 Issue 5 - The Causes of the War of Independence Part 2, The Constitutional and Legal Issues Part 2 - Couns
4/4
find
no
common ground with purchasedforus. Thefaithofthe
the founders of our nation. The French revolution leads only to
faith of our fathers was largely slavery
and
death. James
Biblical. Modem revolutionaries B
l l
n gton
0
bserves th e
hating that faith, refuse to irresistible drive
toward
acknowledge
a meaning in centralism which was produced
hislol)' which condemns them. by the French Revolution:
Thus,
what,we
see is nothing Robbespierre's twelve-man
more than the outworking of Commit tee of Public Safety
thatnativeenmityofthenalural
(1793-94)
gave way to a
man
against the living
qod
and five-man Directorate (1795-99),
His holywill. . o a three-man Consulate, to the
The
faith ofthe founderslnust designation of Napoleon as First
be restored to this nation if
we
Consul in 1799, and finally to
are to survive in the liberty they Napoleon s
coronation
as
emperor in 1804. [Fire
in the
Minds of Men, p. 22)
Tyranny and slavery are
the inevitable
and
inescapable fruits of
unbelief.
Our
nation will
not be an exception to this
terrible rule. Q
Fot
over 100 years Americans have
been
subjected to historical
mi
sinformation.We havebeengiv
en
ies for
tntthand
myths for
facts. Modem, unbelieving historians have hidden the truth of
our
nation's histo ry from us.
America: The First
35 Years not
OJ;uy
corrects
the
lies, but also points
out
things overlooked
by
modem
historians.
It
nterprets American history from a
Chris
tian
perspective
so
that
you hear
not only what
happened, by
why ithappened-andwhat it means to us today.
32
lectures on
16--90
minute
cassettes, 200
page
notebook, 16
page
study
guide, lecture outlines, index bibliography.
special rate
for
Counsel ofChalcedon readers
MERICA: The First 350 Years-$64.95 x
Louisiana residents add 7 sales tax ( 2i:t.) =
SHIPPING AND HANDLING: Add 10 (15
UPS) =
(Check or Money Order) Total Enclosed
(name)
(Street Address or P.O.
Box)
Gty)
(State) Zip)
PLEASE ALLOW 4 6 WEEKS FOR DEliVERY
Send self-addressed stamped envelope
to
receive more information
14
THE COUNSEL
of
Chalcedon t ayl
June,
1995