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 or with
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 legislatures and 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 parliament of (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
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, It Is
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 it 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 people we 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 intended to be continued such,
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 it
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
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 faith of the founders
must be restored to this
nation if we are 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
purchased 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 T yrannos 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
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 ill in 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 Committee of Public Safety
thatnativeenmityofthenalural (1793-94) gave way to a
man against the living qod and five-man Directorate (1795-99),
His holy will. . to 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
misinformation. We havebeen given lies for tntthand myths for
facts. Modem, unbelieving historians have hidden the truth of
our nation's history from us. America: The First 350 Years not
OJ;uy corrects the lies, but also points out things "overlooked" by
modem historians. It interprets American history from a Chris-
tian perspective so that you hear not only what happened, by
why it happened-and what 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 of Chalcedon readers-
-------------------------------------
AMERICA: 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 Mayl June, 1995