In their book,
“The Revolution Myth” Gene Fisher and Glen Chambers explain why,
according to facts uncovered by their research, the American War of
Independence was not a revolution. The following statement, from the
book's preface, tells us why this book is both unique and necessary if
we are to understand the history of our country.
“American
Christians have had difficulty understanding why many of our founding
fathers, while adhering to biblical principles in their public and
private lives, could, at the same time, rebel against constituted
government. Historical investigation shows that they did not rebel.”
THE
AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT
In trying to
understand the situation that existed prior to the Declaration of
Independence, it would be a mistake to assume that the American
colonies were provinces ruled by the king. Instead, each colony had its
own government, and that government was the legal authority within its
borders. In fact, as each colony was set up its founders were given a
charter granting them, “full executive, legislative, and judicial
authority. Parliament was not involved and the king had only
restraining power. The Rhode Island and Connecticut Charters did not
even involve the king. They were contracts between the people and God,
establishing independent governments based upon God's Word.”
(Page 2)
Since George the
Third (At the time of his coronation in 1760) felt that his father and
grandfather had given over too much power to Parliament, he was
determined to regain that power. As a result, his quest for power
affected all of his dealings with the colonies, while Americans were
outraged by what they viewed as an attempt on the part of the king to
ignore the rule of law and usurp control of their affairs.
ENGLISH
LAW
Another key factor
in understanding the position of the colonies has to do with the role
of the king as established by English law. That role was defined when
King James II allied himself with the king of France, and made plans to
invade England – in order to assert his power over Parliament and
impose the Catholic religion on England. At that time, Parliament held
that the king had, by such action, abdicated his role as the protector
of the English people. As a result of that decision, on February 13,
1689 – shortly after William and Mary had succeeded James II –
Parliament presented a declaration of rights (the English Bill of
Rights) which was enacted into law on December 16, 1689. The following
statement, taken from that declaration of rights, reflects Parliament's
position that the people owe the king their allegiance because he is
their protector, and cease to owe him that allegiance if he ceases to
be their protector. “Whereas the said late king James the Second having
abdicated the government, and the throne being thereby vacant…” (Page
98)
In regard to that
aspect of English law, Boston Judge, Edmund Quincy made the following
statement. “I think that the member of the House of Commons, who, in a
ludicrous manner, inquired at ‘what time the Americans were
emancipated,’ might have saved himself the trouble by looking into Sir
William Blackstone's Commentaries [on Magna Carta] Volume 1, page 223,
upon the duties of kings; where he would have found it to be a maxim of
common law, that when protection ceaseth, allegiance ceaseth to be the
duty of the subject.” (From a letter to John Hancock 3/25/1776) (Page
73)
KING
GEORGE'S ABDICATION
During the years
prior to the War of Independence, the friction between the king and the
American Colonies resulted in some civil disobedience [the “Boston tea
party” being the best-known example], however, the Colonial governments
did not instigate that disobedience and were not responsible for it.
Instead, the Colonial governments were always respectful in dealing
with the king, and made several attempts to resolve the differences
peaceably – the last such attempt [known as the “Olive Branch
Petition”] being sent to the king on July fifth 1775.
In that petition,
the Colonial representatives affirm their allegiance, show no evidence
of any desire to rebel, and make every effort to settle the differences
peaceably. However, the king reacted to that petition in anger, and
called for legislation to bring the American Colonies in line. A draft
of the requested legislation (known as the Prohibitory Act) was
presented to Parliament on November 20, 1775, adopted before the end of
the year, and was to go into effect on January first 1776. That Act
contained the following quote. “All ships and vessels of or belonging
to the inhabitants of the said colonies, together with their cargoes,
apparel, and furniture, which shall be found trading in any port or
place of the said colonies, or going to trade, or coming from trading,
in any such port or place, shall become forfeited to his Majesty, as if
the same were the ships and effects of open enemies, and shall be so
adjudged, deemed and taken.” (Page 113)
AMERICA'S
REACTION
While news of the
Prohibitory Act did not arrive in America until late in February 1776,
colonial leaders immediately realized that, by declaring war on
American shipping, the king had abdicated his role as the protector of
the American people.
Therefore, on April
23, 1776, after reviewing the charges against George III, Judge William
Henry Drayton, Chief Justice of South Carolina, decided “that the law
of the land authorized him to declare, that George the Third, king of
Great Britain, had abdicated the government; and that the throne was
thereby vacant.” (Pages 69-70)
The Preamble to the
Virginia Constitution [adopted June 29, 1776] begins with the words,
“Whereas George the Third” and ends with the statement, “and finally by
abandoning the helm of government, and declaring us out of his
allegiance and protection. By which several acts of misrule, the
government of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of
Great Britain, is totally dissolved.” (Pages 119- 120)
The Declaration of
Independence says of George III, “He has abdicated Government here by
declaring us out of his Protection and urging War against us.” (Page
123)
“The Declaration
[of Independence], therefore, in the name of thirteen unanimous states,
proclaims that the monarch who had been obeyed, loved, and honored by
them had removed himself from office. George had violated the compact
between sovereign and subject just as James II had done, an action for
which Parliament had dethroned James in 1688.” (Page 59)
CONCLUSION
Once the facts are
known it becomes obvious that it was the king, not the Colonial
governments, who attempted to overthrow the rule of law.
A review of, “the
Revolution Myth” published 1981, by Bob Jones University Press
[Note: One man who visited my
web site felt that I contradicted myself by praising of the Declaration
in one place while asserting that revolution was wrong in another. Like
those who see contradictions in Scripture, he simply imagined that a
contradiction existed because he was ignorant of the facts.]