1995 Issue 5 - The Causes of the War of Independence Part 2, The Constitutional and Legal Issues Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon

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


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


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


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

Documents

1995 Issue 5 - The Causes of the War of Independence Part 2, The Constitutional and Legal Issues Part 2 - Counsel of Chalcedon