THE
REVOLUTION MYTH
A Review By
Gary Ray Branscome
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.
The reason
that the American war of independence succeeded in producing a good government,
while the French revolution led to dictatorship, lies in the fact that the American
war of independence preserved the rule of law (along with the restrictions it
placed upon rulers) while the French revolution overthrew the rule of law.