On one hand it seems to me to be a completely absurd exercise to write an article in defense of the American Revolution. Yet, on the other hand, I also recognize that in fact, this has been a hotly debated issue in some circles over the course of our history. The debate is not new; there were, to be sure, divisions among the American colonists themselves over the issue of “Independence” and “Separation from England”. Most of the colonists really desired, both by their historical ties to Britain and also their biblical convictions of submission, to remain “loyal subjects of the crown.” Almost none of the Founding Fathers at the outset wanted war with England or separation from England. Notwithstanding, tyranny makes no compromise.
I want to state for the record that I make no claim at being a historian. Much of what follows is a collection gathered together and cobbled together by my own research and investigation, from books within my own library as well as the wealth that can be found on the internet. When engaging in historical research it is always best to try and read primary source documents as much as possible, in order to understand what actually happened, and to avoid as much as possible “editorial” and ‘interpretative’ accounts of what happened (this is what most school textbooks are). I have made some links (highlighted text areas) to a few of those sources for those with inquiring minds. We have a rich and well documented History. And though I bemoan the fact that a sound and intensive American history is not being taught in our schools anymore, yet in light of the resources afforded to us by way of the internet, we are without excuse if we are ignorant of the facts. Nevertheless, I do not pretend to settle the issue, nor do I pretend to cover all the historical elements that were involved in the Colonies separation from England. This article is intended to be a short essay - not a book! Having said that, I do hope to speak into what I believe is a woefully insufficient understanding of the historical facts, and attitudes that led Christians and even ministers of the gospel to take up arms against tyranny, and to do it within a biblical conviction.
Part of the reason I am writing this essay is because I am alarmed by some Christians who seem to want to demean and impugn the motives of the founders of this nation. Men and woman, whom the records clearly show had a deep reverence and fear of God, people who had a deep faith, and understanding of the word of God, who today are being held in contempt by some modern day, easy-chair quarterback Christians. I’m not suggesting that ALL the founding fathers were Christians. But the vast majority of the founders and certainly a majority of colonist’s were in fact Christian. And perhaps more importantly, the rank and file farmer’s, merchants, and yes even Pastor’s who fought the British were by and large bible-believing, God-fearing Christians. Many historians maintain that the Great Awakening, whose main leaders were none other than the much revered and respected Jonathan Edwards and George Whitfield were a major force behind colonial resistance to Parliament. As a result of the Great Awaking, significant portions of the colonial population had become bible believers by 1775. Because, many feared Anglicanism, resistance to English control was largely motivated by a desire to preserve religious liberty.
Most American’s are familiar with the famous line of Patrick Henry, "Give me liberty or give me death," but did you also know that this courageous patriot also said, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, and on the gospel of Jesus Christ." John Quincy Adams, whose father John Adams was a signer of the declaration said, "The highest glory of the American revolution was this, that it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of Christianity, with the principles of civil government."
The Bible is clear that God sets up the nations and their boundaries. And not only does He establish all the nations, He even has special purposes for some of the nations! He rules over the kingdom of men! His sovereignty and providence directs the course of human events! “You drove out the nations with Your hand, But them (Israel) You planted; You afflicted the peoples, and cast them out. For they (Israel) did not gain possession of the land by their own sword, Nor did their own arm save them; But it was Your right hand, Your arm, and the light of Your countenance, Because You favored them.” (Ps.44:2). I believe that, ‘... the Most High rules in the kingdom of men, and Gives it to whomever He will; And He sets over it the lowest of men.’ (Dan.4:17) And a day is coming when; “All the nations whom You have made Shall come and worship before You…” (Ps.86:9).
Some hold to a belief that the American Revolution cannot be justified by scripture. As I have already stated, I have come across some who seem to want to impugn those who were Christian Patriots during the founding of this nation as being “rebellious” and “disobedient to scripture”. I could not disagree more and furthermore (in my opinion) it is the height of self-righteousness and arrogance to hold to such an idea. To me it speaks of both an ignorance of the facts of history as well as a faulty interpretation as to what constitutes “submission” to authority and to what extent submission is given; and “When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them…”
Therefore, I want to bring to light some much neglected facts of history. It is not my intention nor is it possible, to cover all of the already well known elements that led up to the Revolution, things like the “sugar act” of 1764, or the “stamp act” of 1765. We’ve all been taught about Paul Revere, and the Boston Tea Party. Those are not my points of query for this article. I want to talk about some of the lesser known, and perhaps more important things that are not often, (if ever) mentioned. Events that if properly understood would challenge the idea that the “American Revolution” was an act of ‘open rebellion’ that could not be justified biblically.
In order to keep things in some semblance of chronology I will stipulate that it is generally and popularly taught and recognized that the “American Revolution” started with “the shot heard around the world” at the Lexington Green in Massachusetts, on April 19th, 1775. That first shot was fired by the British, and it is important to note that the Colonist Captain John Parker had beforehand told his men “Don’t fire unless fired upon…” however, when Captain Parker saw the size of the contingency of British soldiers marching up the road (before any shots were fired), he called out the order to “disperse”. The British started firing on retreating colonists who had not fired a shot. The British routed the colonist’s at Lexington and continued their march to Concord. (For an interesting eyewitness account: The Battle at Lexington Green)
Notwithstanding the tensions and grievances that led up the those confrontations, it is extremely important to point out that the Colonies were still very much in favor of reconciling with England. The following month after the outbreaks in Lexington and Concord, The Continental congress proposed and drafted up “The Olive Branch Petition” . The Olive Branch Petition was adopted by the Second Continental Congress on July 5, 1775 and submitted to King George on July 8, 1775. It was an attempt by the colonists to explain their grievances while affirming and maintaining their loyalty to the British crown. King George refused to read the petition and on August 23 proclaimed that the colonists had "proceeded to open and avowed rebellion."
A little known fact is that, in spite of the King's refusal to receive the Olive Branch Petition, the Congress actually sent one more letter to the King. On December 4th, 1775 the Congress approved a response to the King's proclamation of August 23rd. In it they reasserted their loyalty to the king, their wish to avoid war and their belief that it was the king's ministers and not the king himself who were violating their rights. They published this letter and had it sent to their agents in Great Britain, but of course it accomplished nothing.
The main thing I want to emphasize is that the American colonists did not rebel against constitutional authority; they did not seek independence from the king of England (at least not at first). It was England through the Prohibitory Act (December 22, 1775), that indeed officially severed ties with the American Colonies. What did the Prohibitory Act do? This act declared war on the colonist’s and removed them from Britain’s protection. This fateful Act declared all Americans to be outlaws beyond the king’s protection at the very moment when, across the Atlantic, conservative leaders in America were working feverishly to craft a settlement to present to the king and Parliament that would end the intermittent fighting between colonial and royal forces, protect the colonists from unconstitutional parliamentary legislation while at the same time would stop short of a declaration of independence.
John Adams said of the Prohibitory act that…“It throws thirteen colonies out of the royal protection, levels all distinctions, and makes us independent in spite of our supplications and entreaties...It may be fortunate that the act of independency should come from the British Parliament rather than the American Congress.” Please read what John Adams said very carefully, ”…It may be fortunate that the act of independency should come from the British Parliament rather than the American Congress.”
We are commonly taught and we celebrate the 4th of July as our nation’s birthday and “Independence Day”. However, it was actually England that severed the relationship eight months prior! This is an extremely important point. The colonists did not declare war on England. England declared war on them! The colonists were being attacked by what had now become a foreign power!
The Declaration of Independence was not written to gain independence but to define what had already been forced upon the colonies. Historian authors Gene Fisher and Glen Chambers in their book, “The Revolution Myth” observe; “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.”
This is the major point that is woefully missing in our modern understanding! The Revolution was not a war of sedition as is commonly taught and thought – it was a war of self-defense. A study of the record, the timeline, and English law as both the Colonist’s and the English Parliament understood it, bears this out.
We all know and have been taught that the colonist’s were resisting the heavy taxation that was being levied on them by the British Parliament. “No taxation without representation” became the cry of the day. What we need to understand, is what the colonies clearly understood, the taxation had little to do with England’s budgetary concerns and everything to do with Britain “claiming ownership” of the colonies and of what the colonies were producing. When Charles Townshend who was the head of the British Treasury argued for the heavy taxation of the colonist’s, Isaac Barr, a member of the British Parliament said the following, (please read this very carefully) “We did not plant the colonies. Most of them fled from oppression. They met with great difficulty and hardship, but as they fled from tyranny here they could not dread danger there. They flourished not by our care but by our neglect. They have increased while we did not attend to them. They shrink under our hand.”
How and why would a member of the British Parliament make such a statement? It is a fact of history that the Colonial charters of the colonies did not give legislative powers to either the King or to the British parliament. No legal documents ever gave the parliament authority over the colonies. The founding charters of the individual territories and commonwealths were originally drafted by the governors and citizens of those ‘states’ in the late 1500’s and 1600’s. The king of England granted the charter’s but NEVER GAVE AUTHORITY to the British Parliament over the territories. There was no Parliamentary over-sight, nor colonial representation in the Parliament! Therefore it was not merely a slogan, ‘No taxation without representation!’ The colonist’s had every legal reason for believing that they had never been under Parliaments’ authority. The British parliament argued that the colonial assemblies were subordinate by nature, (i.e. they came from Britain and were British by origin) but Parliament never argued that they were subordinate by law! To add insult to injury The British Parliament began making illegal demands upon the Colonists and even breaking English law. (To put it into modern terms – they were making unconstitutional laws and applying them only to the colonies – sound familiar?) But, in fact the Parliament had neither the legal right nor authority to do what they were doing. The Colonists had already established a couple of hundred years of self-governing legislation. It wasn’t until England saw the prosperity and growth of the American colonies that they decided they wanted to reassert control back over the colonies. - (Refer back to that earlier quote by Isaac Barr) – “They flourished not by our care but by our neglect. They have increased while we did not attend to them..{now}… They shrink under our hand.”
As I said, it’s not my purpose here to write a book. But it is my intention to share some insight into this topic and challenge my brethren to be sure of the facts before they egregiously impugn those who gave their lives and fortunes, so we could have the God-given privilege of living as a free people.
It was the work, the wealth, the honor, and the blood of this country's founding fathers that brought us the freedom’s that we enjoy today. Freedom costs something, it doesn't come cheaply. The Declaration ends with this pledge, "And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
We can enjoy our freedom today in this great country of ours because a handful of men over 235 years ago believed in the principles of freedom. It pays to ask, from where did they get their convictions from? On what supposition did they harness so much courage? The Declaration of Independence is premised on the fact that, "...all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights,". These men knew that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were rights given by God.
This is the question for inquiring minds to consider in light of the facts. Was the “Revolution” an act of seditious rebellion, or rather an act of self-defense? It was clear in the minds of the colonists that they had a God given right to defend their life and property.
The first Baptist pastor ever to become a chaplain in the American military was the Reverend David Jones, who in 1776 was appointed to serve Colonel St. Clair's regiment. The Continental Congress called for a day of fasting and prayer (July 20, 1775), and Jones preached to an army regiment on the subject "Defensive War in a Just Cause Sinless." The die was cast, and in 1776 he left his flock to serve the first of three tours of duty with the American forces.
America's greatest need today is to return to the Word of God whose principles are its basis for liberty, whose Gospel is its true source of freedom.
Blessings – Andy white
Addendum: Here is a link to another article (lengthy) - but worth the read if you want to study this out further! The American Revolution: Was it an Act of Biblical Rebellion?
Comments