The Founders Were Traitors

[Truth Warrior]

The Founders Were Traitors
At least, that was the way their government saw it. Article by Jacob G. Hornberger.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/hornberger149.html


The Real Meaning of the Fourth of July


by Jacob G. Hornberger (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/mailto:jgh500@yahoo.com)




Contrary to popular myth, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were not great Americans. Instead, they were great Englishmen. In fact, they were as much English citizens as Americans today are American citizens. It’s easy to forget that the revolutionaries in 1776 were people who took up arms against their own government.

So how is it that these men are considered patriots? Well, the truth is that their government didn’t consider them patriots at all. Their government considered them to be bad guys – traitors, all of whom deserved to be hanged for treason.

Most of us consider the signers of the Declaration of Independence to be patriots because of their courage in taking a stand against the wrongdoing and tyranny of their own government, even risking their lives in the process.

Yet not even the patriotism and courage of these English citizens constitutes the foremost significance of the Fourth of July, any more than the military victory over their government’s forces at Yorktown does.

Instead, the real significance of the Fourth of July lies in the expression of what is undoubtedly the most revolutionary political declaration in history: that man’s rights are inherent, God-given, and natural and, thus, do not come from government.

Throughout history, people have believed that their rights come from government. Such being the case, people haven’t objected whenever government officials infringed upon their rights. Since rights were considered to be government-bestowed privileges, the thinking went, why shouldn’t government officials have the power to regulate or suspend such privileges at will?

The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights. All men – not just Americans – have been endowed by God and nature, not government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called into existence by the people – and exist at their pleasure – for one purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights.

What happens if a government that people have established becomes a destroyer, rather than a protector, of their rights? The Declaration provides the answer: It is the right of the people to alter or even abolish their government and establish new government whose purpose is the protection, not the destruction, of people’s rights and freedoms.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights must be construed in light of that revolutionary statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence. The American people used the Constitution to bring the federal government into existence but also, simultaneously, they used that document to limit the government’s powers to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution. With the Constitution, people limited the powers of their own government in a formal, structured way, with the aim of protecting their rights and freedoms from being infringed upon by that same government.

Why did Americans deem it desirable and necessary to limit the powers of the federal government? Because they feared the possibility that their new government would become like their former government against which they had had to take up arms. While they recognized the necessity for government – as a means to protect their rights – they also recognized that the federal government was the greatest threat to their rights. By severely limiting the powers of the federal government to those enumerated within the Constitution, the Framers intended to encase the federal government within a straitjacket.

Even that was not sufficient for the American people, however. As a condition for approving the Constitution, they demanded passage of the Bill of Rights, which emphasized two deeply held beliefs: (1) that the federal government, not some foreign entity, constitutes the greatest threat to the rights and liberties of the American people; and (2) that the enumeration of specific rights and liberties, both substantive and procedural, would better ensure their protection from federal infringement.

On the Fourth of July we celebrate the patriotism and courage of those English revolutionaries who were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in defense of the most revolutionary declaration of rights in history – that man’s rights come from God and nature, not from government.


July 7, 2008


Jacob Hornberger [send him mail (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hornberger/mailto:jhornberger@fff.org)] is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation (http://www.fff.org/).


Copyright © 2008 Future of Freedom Foundation (http://www.fff.org/)

[Truth Warrior]

Sorry Jacob, I kinda gotta disagree with you on that 1789 Federalist coup Constitution there. ;)

[acptulsa]

As a child in a Presbyterian Sunday School, I learned that a church isn't a building, it is a group of people. The church meets in the church building.

What is a nation? A land mass? A government? Or a people?

They were no traitors! We are no traitors!

[Truth Warrior]

As a child in a Presbyterian Sunday School, I learned that a church isn't a building, it is a group of people. The church meets in the church building.

What is a nation? A land mass? A government? Or a people?

They were no traitors! We are no traitors!

Nation: Geography + government, AKA USA AKA Amerika.
Country: Geography AKA America.

< IMHO > ;)

[acptulsa]

Nation: Geography + government, AKA USA AKA Amerika.
Country: Geography AKA America.

< IMHO > ;)

Not a very libertarian position, TW. A government that does not meet the needs of it's people first and foremost is an injustice. And a nation without people is, well, about as lonely as Antarctica--and has as much need of government.

[Truth Warrior]

Not a very libertarian position, TW. A government that does not meet the needs of it's people first and foremost is an injustice. And a nation without people is, well, about as lonely as Antarctica--and has as much need of government.

http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i304/Truth_Warrior/lewrock0305a.gif


;)

[familydog]

The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights. All men – not just Americans – have been endowed by God and nature, not government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called into existence by the people – and exist at their pleasure – for one purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights.

This isn't entirely true. Nobody cared about the Declaration until Lincoln brought it into the national imagination. It didn't have that big of an impact on the founding.

[Truth Warrior]

This isn't entirely true. Nobody cared about the Declaration until Lincoln brought it into the national imagination. It didn't have that big of an impact on the founding.
Yeah you're right, officially triggering the American Revolution was really no big deal. :rolleyes:

[familydog]

Yeah you're right, officially triggering the American Revolution was really no big deal. :rolleyes:

That's simply not true. If any Declaration played an important role on the founding it was George Mason's Declaration of the Rights of Virginia. Rarely if at all did anyone quote from Jefferson's Declaration during the Revolution or immidiately after. All the other states that drafted declarations of their own never quoted Jefferson's, but four quoted Mason's. Jefferson's declaration was rarely cited during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Federalist Papers make only one reference. You know that famous quote "What, sir, is the genius of democracy?" Patrick Henry said that at the Virginia Constitution ratification debates. Right after he said that he read for the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Like I said, Jefferson's Delcaration did not come into national prominence until the Lincoln-Douglas debate of 1858. He used the Declaration as a way to show the injustice of slavery.

[Truth Warrior]

That's simply not true. If any Declaration played an important role on the founding it was George Mason's Declaration of the Rights of Virginia. Rarely if at all did anyone quote from Jefferson's Declaration during the Revolution or immidiately after. All the other states that drafted declarations of their own never quoted Jefferson's, but four quoted Mason's. Jefferson's declaration was rarely cited during the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Federalist Papers make only one reference. You know that famous quote "What, sir, is the genius of democracy?" Patrick Henry said that at the Virginia Constitution ratification debates. Right after he said that he read for the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

Like I said, Jefferson's Delcaration did not come into national prominence until the Lincoln-Douglas debate of 1858. He used the Declaration as a way to show the injustice of slavery.

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"

We've read very different versions of American history. :rolleyes:

[Hiki]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=sLzo9pOXa-s&feature=related

[familydog]

"The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"

We've read very different versions of American history. :rolleyes:

Meh. I'm reading history. You're reading...I'm not sure what.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Contrary to popular myth, the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were not great Americans. Instead, they were great Englishmen. In fact, they were as much English citizens as Americans today are American citizens. It’s easy to forget that the revolutionaries in 1776 were people who took up arms against their own government.
So how is it that these men are considered patriots? Well, the truth is that their government didn’t consider them patriots at all. Their government considered them to be bad guys – traitors, all of whom deserved to be hanged for treason.
Most of us consider the signers of the Declaration of Independence to be patriots because of their courage in taking a stand against the wrongdoing and tyranny of their own government, even risking their lives in the process.
Yet not even the patriotism and courage of these English citizens constitutes the foremost significance of the Fourth of July, any more than the military victory over their government’s forces at Yorktown does.

The "Declaration of Independence" was a legal divorce decree. This decree didn't divorce a king from the American dinner table but a tyrant. Divorcing a king from the table would have been considered a Spiritual offense in both the United States and England because he or she had been ordained with God's sovereign authority on earth.


Instead, the real significance of the Fourth of July lies in the expression of what is undoubtedly the most revolutionary political declaration in history: that man’s rights are inherent, God-given, and natural and, thus, do not come from government.

This isn't true. In establishing our national dinner table, the Founding Fathers define 3 types of power in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

1. Corrupt power of tyranny.
2. Mediating power of the people
3. Proper power of the king.

The people don't have the power to tell the king what to do at the dinner table. Instead they have the power to remove a tyrant from the table and then marry themselves under the rule of a new king (president). The people should never remove kings from the dinner table (Meanings in words are important).


Throughout history, people have believed that their rights come from government. Such being the case, people haven’t objected whenever government officials infringed upon their rights. Since rights were considered to be government-bestowed privileges, the thinking went, why shouldn’t government officials have the power to regulate or suspend such privileges at will?

The petty rights do come from the government. The self evident truths and unalienable rights on the other hand empower the people as mediators. This power supercedes the corrupt power of tyranny.

Think of an egg in three parts.

1. Inner part of yellow yolk equals limited resources
2. Outside of the egg equals unlimited resources
3. The egg itself is a product created when both truths are mixed together.

Our Founding Fathers crafted our self evident truths and unalienable rights out from the raw, unlimited resources. The corrupt power of tyranny can burn us, shoot us, torture us, poison us. It can claim that there is not enough room for us to sit at the national dinner table. They can claim that there is not enough room for us all to be happy. Therefore most of us will have to be enslaved to responsibility instead. They could then tear up every copy of the Declaration of Independence. Then Kill every unnecessary human being on the face of the earth with nuclear weapons. But even then that would not change the power of the self evident truths and the unalienable rights because it is greater than the corrupt power of tyranny.

A natural right was not something that reduced down to an ideal; rather, it reduced to the very conscience of every human soul. It was a scientific conclusion that could not be denied logically while it could not be misunderstood linquistically.


The Declaration of Independence upended that age-old notion of rights. All men – not just Americans – have been endowed by God and nature, not government, with fundamental and unalienable rights. Governments are called into existence by the people – and exist at their pleasure – for one purpose: to protect the exercise of these inherent rights.

The reason the people have power as mediators at the national dinner table is to ensure that the outcaste not only has a seat there but that his or her thirst for happiness is being quenched. When the least at the table is not tended to, then the king is declared a tyrant. When this happens the power of the people as mediators either bind the king to his or her responsibilities at the national dinner table or banishes them as tyrants away from it.


What happens if a government that people have established becomes a destroyer, rather than a protector, of their rights? The Declaration provides the answer: It is the right of the people to alter or even abolish their government and establish new government whose purpose is the protection, not the destruction, of people’s rights and freedoms.

The American political spectrum moves not from right to left but back and forth from constitutionality to tyranny. When the national dinner table erodes to tyranny, Americans form movements to move back in the direction of constitutionality by the reestablishment and the reconsecration of its formal divorce decree -- The Declaration of Independence -- and its fomal marriage decree -- The U.S. Constitution.


The Constitution and the Bill of Rights must be construed in light of that revolutionary statement of rights in the Declaration of Independence. The American people used the Constitution to bring the federal government into existence but also, simultaneously, they used that document to limit the government’s powers to those expressly enumerated in the Constitution. With the Constitution, people limited the powers of their own government in a formal, structured way, with the aim of protecting their rights and freedoms from being infringed upon by that same government.

Not all at the national dinner table need a Constitution or a Bill of Rights. Such people are born with those advantages while, at the same time, a Constitution or a Bill of Rights might endanger the great portions they already get served at the national dinner table.
Limiting our government is limiting the necessary evil of tyranny. While the self evident truths and the unalienable rights are concrete, tyranny is dynamic and changing. While the Civil Purpose in the formal documents of The Declaration of Indepence and The U.S. Constitution never changes, the endless legal precedents created by tyranny are necessary when we need measures passed to reestablish our nation to constitutionality.


Why did Americans deem it desirable and necessary to limit the powers of the federal government? Because they feared the possibility that their new government would become like their former government against which they had had to take up arms. While they recognized the necessity for government – as a means to protect their rights – they also recognized that the federal government was the greatest threat to their rights. By severely limiting the powers of the federal government to those enumerated within the Constitution, the Framers intended to encase the federal government within a straitjacket.

Even that was not sufficient for the American people, however. As a condition for approving the Constitution, they demanded passage of the Bill of Rights, which emphasized two deeply held beliefs: (1) that the federal government, not some foreign entity, constitutes the greatest threat to the rights and liberties of the American people; and (2) that the enumeration of specific rights and liberties, both substantive and procedural, would better ensure their protection from federal infringement.
On the Fourth of July we celebrate the patriotism and courage of those English revolutionaries who were willing to pledge their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor in defense of the most revolutionary declaration of rights in history – that man’s rights come from God and nature, not from government.

This is the conclusion or the rehash of the essay. This essay just fails in reduction. It doesn't acknowledge natural law. We did not establish our government based on a political science. Our Founding Fathers did not manipulate people around to establish citizenry as Marxism later did and is still attempting to do.
This essay proves that it is important to establish the truth even when praising our formal documents. Establishing false precedents only work to keep the formal documents from being deemed legal in courts of law.

[Truth Warrior]

Meh. I'm reading history. You're reading...I'm not sure what.
Well again, among some other things currently:

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

:rolleyes:

[familydog]

Well again, among some other things currently:

Index to the Antifederalist Papers
http://www.wepin.com/articles/afp/index.htm

:rolleyes:

The antifederalist were big on the Declaration, that is true. That was well after the Revolution though. But again they didn't put the Declaration into the national spotlight.

[Truth Warrior]

The antifederalist were big on the Declaration, that is true. That was well after the Revolution though. But again they didn't put the Declaration into the national spotlight.
1785, well after. RIGHT! :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Articles of Confederation?

http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/articles.html

[familydog]

1785, well after. RIGHT! :rolleyes:

Well, the Declaration was drafted in 1776. But you are missing the point. Just because the antifederalists made a big deal of the Declaration, doesn't mean it was as big of a deal as the author in the OP made it out to be (at the time of the of the founding anyway).

[Truth Warrior]

Well, the Declaration was drafted in 1776. But you are missing the point. Just because the antifederalists made a big deal of the Declaration, doesn't mean it was as big of a deal as the author in the OP made it out to be (at the time of the of the founding anyway).
Well it appears that LRC has a somewhat different view point than yours.

As do I, BTW. As does Ron, BTW.

[familydog]

Well it appears that LRC has a somewhat different view point than yours.

As do I, BTW.

Good thing I don't believe everything that is on LRC ;)

[acptulsa]

Well, the Declaration was drafted in 1776. But you are missing the point. Just because the antifederalists made a big deal of the Declaration, doesn't mean it was as big of a deal as the author in the OP made it out to be (at the time of the of the founding anyway).

I think Payne's Common Sense meant more to the revolutionaries on the ground, up to their necks in damned logistics. The Declaration was addressed to the king. Even so, I think it pretty obvious that when the Articles of Confederation failed, the framers of the Constitution were trying to make the ideals of the Declaration come true--and protect them.

At least for the lucky people of one nation of the earth.

[Truth Warrior]

I think Payne's Common Sense meant more to the revolutionaries on the ground, up to their necks in damned logistics. The Declaration was addressed to the king. Even so, I think it pretty obvious that when the Articles of Confederation failed, the framers of the Constitution were trying to make the ideals of the Declaration come true--and protect them.

At least for the lucky people of one nation of the earth.
Slight correction: The Articles didn't fail, they were KILLED and couped, by the Federalist cabal. ;)

[familydog]

I think Payne's Common Sense meant more to the revolutionaries on the ground, up to their necks in damned logistics. The Declaration was addressed to the king. Even so, I think it pretty obvious that when the Articles of Confederation failed, the framers of the Constitution were trying to make the ideals of the Declaration come true--and protect them.

At least for the lucky people of one nation of the earth.

Yes. I agree. The ideals were important, not the document. At least for a while.

[acptulsa]

Slight correction: The Articles didn't fail, they were KILLED and couped, by the Federalist cabal. ;)

And the bridge didn't fail, it was killed by the heavy train. Either way, I'm very glad that the Constitution was made of sterner stuff than that. Even today, it's holding up to the attempt to kill it by coup remarkably well...

Hope we can make our defense effective enough soon enough!

[Truth Warrior]

And the bridge didn't fail, it was killed by the heavy train. Either way, I'm very glad that the Constitution was made of sterner stuff than that. Even today, it's holding up to the attempt to kill it by coup remarkably well...

Hope we can make our defense effective enough soon enough!

By what possible "fairy tale" criteria can you even begin to believe that to be true? Just curious! :)

[RockEnds]

The "Declaration of Independence" was a legal divorce decree. This decree didn't divorce a king from the American dinner table but a tyrant. Divorcing a king from the table would have been considered a Spiritual offense in both the United States and England because he or she had been ordained with God's sovereign authority on earth.



A meeting we accordingly had, and conned the paper over. I was delighted with its high tone and the flights of oratory with which it abounded, especially that concerning Negro slavery, which, though I knew his Southern brethren would never suffer to pass in Congress, I certainly never would oppose. There were other expressions which I would not have inserted if I had drawn it up, particularly that which called the King tyrant. I thought this too personal, for I never believed George to be a tyrant in disposition and in nature; I always believed him to be deceived by his courtiers on both sides of the Atlantic, and in his official capacity, only, cruel. I thought the expression too passionate, and too much like scolding, for so grave and solemn a document; but as Franklin and Sherman were to inspect it afterwards, I thought it would not become me to strike it out. I consented to report it, and do not now remember that I made or suggested a single alteration.

John Adams

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jefferson.htm

I guess Adams fell short of preconceived colonial religious perfection.

[acptulsa]

By what possible "fairy tale" criteria can you even begin to believe that to be true? Just curious! :)

The fact that you, my friend, can still freely state that the law of the land is violated by our represenatives?

At least for now. Forever, I fear, it can only be protected by our blood, toil, tears and sweat... :mad:

[Truth Warrior]

The fact that you, my friend, can still freely state that the law of the land is violated by our represenatives?

At least for now. Forever, I fear, it can only be protected by our blood, toil, tears and sweat... :mad: The government public servants created the mess. Let the servants clean it up. Our job is to hire and FIRE the servants.<IMHO> ;)

Chill dude, we're just yakking here. :D

[acptulsa]

Chill dude, we're just yakking here. :D

We're just talking about whether or not the government will continue to respect our God-given inalienable rights. When this subject causes the red American blood in my veins to truly chill, do yourself a favor and stand back.

[Truth Warrior]

We're just talking about whether or not the government will continue to respect our God-given inalienable rights. When this subject causes the red American blood in my veins to truly chill, do yourself a favor and stand back.
When did they ever? :(

BTW, what's your blast radius? :D

[acptulsa]

BTW, what's your blast radius? :D

You actually have reason to ask, too. About Harvard Avenue. Which side is the safe side depends on if I'm at work or not.

[Truth Warrior]

You actually have reason to ask, too. About Harvard Avenue. Which side is the safe side depends on if I'm at work or not.
Harvard and whereabouts ( closest major cross street ), I'm west of Harvard, .............. some. ;)

Oh, been meaning to ask you, how about sheople instead of sheeple? :D

[Truth Warrior]

Good thing I don't believe everything that is on LRC ;)
Me either. Just the parts that I agree with. :)

I wonder why Ron would say this:

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) ;)

Any ideas?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/misc/progress.gif

[familydog]

Me either. Just the parts that I agree with. :)

I wonder why Ron would say this:

"Visit LewRockwell.com, an outstanding and crucially important Web site I visit every day." -- Ron Paul.
"THE REVOLUTION, A MANIFESTO" ( page # 158 ), http://www.lewrockwell.com/ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/) ;)

Any ideas?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/misc/progress.gif

Because the people there have a lot of good things to say. I agree. I just don't accept everything that is said there at face value without doing some fact checking.

[Truth Warrior]

Because the people there have a lot of good things to say. I agree. I just don't accept everything that is said there at face value without doing some fact checking.
Yep, I agree. Me too. :)

[mediahasyou]

Traitors to King George III...but he had no friends anyways.

[Truth Warrior]

Traitors to King George III...but he had no friends anyways.
It's good to be the king. :D

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jefferson.htm

I guess Adams fell short of preconceived colonial religious perfection.

Feeling free to express oneself as a shaggy attired atheist or even a pagan for that matter didn't become popular until the 60's and 70's. So, contrary to those who revision history as such, our Founding Fathers either had to be Christians or behave so in a secular fashion. It isn't that humor didn't exist during those days, but things were still pretty caste in society. One had to be born a gentleman to die a gentleman. If one wasn't born a gentleman, they were damned to die a lessor position in society.
Being that there were fewer books, no internet, no radio and no television, one would assume that our Founding Fathers read their bibles quite a bit. In the book of Romans are the verses which lay out the problems with ridding oneself of a tyrant and replacing him or her with a new king for he or she is ordained clearly with God's authority.
Along with this knowledge, the Pope at one time expressed God's authority on earth even beyond Christ's own words in the bible. Similarly, it was believed too that the king expressed God's authority. They worked in unison together to improve their power. While it was customary at that time for the first born in Europe to enter into the employment of the king, it was likewise customary for the second born to enter into the service of the Catholic Church.
So, that the king expressed God's authority on earth wasn't something that our Founding Fathers had to read in a book. Such had already been manifested clearly in history.
It is odd that Adams would nuzzle up to the king that way. King George was a very nice fellow of course as are most tyrants. Perhaps Adams was just being a good sport? The way a winning football team will try to comfort a losing one after they defeat them in a game?
Perhaps Adams didn't perceive that the self evident truths and the unalienable rights written in the Declaration of Independence went beyond Americans to include the British people under King George's own rule? I bet this is the case here.
Adams although quite intellegent as a gentleman wasn't very perceptive as a human being.

Major premise: All men are created equal with unalienalble rights written onto the conscience of their human souls.

Minor premise: Nice King George was a member of all men.

Conclusion: Nice King George was a tyrant because he didn't listen to his own conscience.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Slight correction: The Articles didn't fail, they were KILLED and couped, by the Federalist cabal. ;)

Damn. Do you mean we could have been Baltic like Latin America? What were we thinking?

[Truth Warrior]

Damn. Do you mean we could have been Baltic like Latin America? What were we thinking?
Or perhaps merely continued under amended Articles of Confederation. The Federalist cabal was ONLY authorized to make amendment Recommendations.

FECES OCCURS!

[RockEnds]

Feeling free to express oneself as a shaggy attired atheist or even a pagan for that matter didn't become popular until the 60's and 70's. So, contrary to those who revision history as such, our Founding Fathers either had to be Christians or behave so in a secular fashion. It isn't that humor didn't exist during those days, but things were still pretty caste in society. One had to be born a gentleman to die a gentleman. If one wasn't born a gentleman, they were damned to die a lessor position in society.
Being that there were fewer books, no internet, no radio and no television, one would assume that our Founding Fathers read their bibles quite a bit. In the book of Romans are the verses which lay out the problems with ridding oneself of a tyrant and replacing him or her with a new king for he or she is ordained clearly with God's authority.
Along with this knowledge, the Pope at one time expressed God's authority on earth even beyond Christ's own words in the bible. Similarly, it was believed too that the king expressed God's authority. They worked in unison together to improve their power. While it was customary at that time for the first born in Europe to enter into the employment of the king, it was likewise customary for the second born to enter into the service of the Catholic Church.
So, that the king expressed God's authority on earth wasn't something that our Founding Fathers had to read in a book. Such had already been manifested clearly in history.
It is odd that Adams would nuzzle up to the king that way. King George was a very nice fellow of course as are most tyrants. Perhaps Adams was just being a good sport? The way a winning football team will try to comfort a losing one after they defeat them in a game?
Perhaps Adams didn't perceive that the self evident truths and the unalienable rights written in the Declaration of Independence went beyond Americans to include the British people under King George's own rule? I bet this is the case here.
Adams although quite intellegent as a gentleman wasn't very perceptive as a human being.

Major premise: All men are created equal with unalienalble rights written onto the conscience of their human souls.

Minor premise: Nice King George was a member of all men.

Conclusion: Nice King George was a tyrant because he didn't listen to his own conscience.

I do understand Divine Right. I know our forefathers understood it in practice as well as in theory. I know that there was a certain portion of the population that feared God's retribution for ousting the king, and the FF's had to address that issue. My point was simply that they didn't all necessarily believe in divine right on a personal level. They were very practical. Divine right is not especially practical. It's a manner by which one can retain power even if one is a less than desirable ruler. Adams didn't believe George was a tyrant, yet he wasn't afraid to support Revolution or even support the claim that George was a tyrant. He didn't display a personal belief that ousting George was against the will of God through divine ordination.

[Truth Warrior]

King George was psychotic, probably the result of too many centuries of too much, too long, Royal families inbreeding.<IMHO>

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

I do understand Divine Right. I know our forefathers understood it in practice as well as in theory. I know that there was a certain portion of the population that feared God's retribution for ousting the king, and the FF's had to address that issue. My point was simply that they didn't all necessarily believe in divine right on a personal level. They were very practical. Divine right is not especially practical. It's a manner by which one can retain power even if one is a less than desirable ruler. Adams didn't believe George was a tyrant, yet he wasn't afraid to support Revolution or even support the claim that George was a tyrant. He didn't display a personal belief that ousting George was against the will of God through divine ordination.

I see. Our Founding Fathers planted the seeds for American Transcendentalism. Figure the self evident truths that all men are created equal with the unalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is about the last thing a true "gentleman" would ever sign his name to. Yet, that is how it was back then with gentlemen born into their high positions while a man born into a lessor position was at a disadvantage in matters regarding upward mobility.
It wasn't until we get to Ralph Waldo Emerson that he challenges the perceived Puritan notion that a Native American man was a savage by uplifting his character instead to become the very model of happiness that our Founding Fathers intended for us in the Declaration of Independence. It is during the American Transcendentalism movement that the divide between America and Europe began to grow.

[Ozwest]

I see. Our Founding Fathers planted the seeds for American Transcendentalism. Figure the self evident truths that all men are created equal with the unalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is about the last thing a true "gentleman" would ever sign his name to. Yet, that is how it was back then with gentlemen born into their high positions while a man born into a lessor position was at a disadvantage in matters regarding upward mobility.
It wasn't until we get to Ralph Waldo Emerson that he challenges the perceived Puritan notion that a Native American man was a savage by uplifting his character instead to become the very model of happiness that our Founding Fathers intended for us in the Declaration of Independence. It is during the American Transcendentalism movement that the divide between America and Europe began to grow.

Occasionally,

You make sense.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Or perhaps merely continued under amended Articles of Confederation. The Federalist cabal was ONLY authorized to make amendment Recommendations.

FECES OCCURS!

So, you would have been happier living in a loosely formed League of Anglo American nations? I guess the donkey could have become the creature used as a symbol of our great union of nations.

Let me tell you about my Mexican ex-wife's uncle Pepe. His brother, this would be her father, had rode a rail car to Texas, United States to find work. The problem is he never felt a need to come back home. So, Pepe being a decent Mexican man decided he would also ride a train car to bring back the wayward father and husband his brother had become.
On the way to the United States, Pepe somehow fell under a train car. As his body was sliced by the wheels of the rail cars, it pulled his body a little closer underneath the train literally slicing him into little pieces until it got to his neck at which point his head fell off and rolled down the enbankment.
My ex-wife further explained how when they later went to his funeral his head wasn't put in a normal sized casket but in a small box fashioned for that of a baby.

Anyway. Thank the Lord for the United States and the Constitution. Because of it we don't have to live in a League of Anglo American nations while we don't have to ride rail cars into Canada to mow tundra for a living.

[Truth Warrior]

Well we sure know now what the Anti-Feds correctly predicted in 1789. For sure!

[RockEnds]

I see. Our Founding Fathers planted the seeds for American Transcendentalism. Figure the self evident truths that all men are created equal with the unalienable right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness is about the last thing a true "gentleman" would ever sign his name to. Yet, that is how it was back then with gentlemen born into their high positions while a man born into a lessor position was at a disadvantage in matters regarding upward mobility.
It wasn't until we get to Ralph Waldo Emerson that he challenges the perceived Puritan notion that a Native American man was a savage by uplifting his character instead to become the very model of happiness that our Founding Fathers intended for us in the Declaration of Independence. It is during the American Transcendentalism movement that the divide between America and Europe began to grow.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying. Are you saying Franklin, the son of a candlestick maker, was an elitist born into a high position?

[Truth Warrior]

So, you would have been happier living in a loosely formed League of Anglo American nations? I guess the donkey could have become the creature used as a symbol of our great union of nations.

Let me tell you about my Mexican ex-wife's uncle Pepe. His brother, this would be her father, had rode a rail car to Texas, United States to find work. The problem is he never felt a need to come back home. So, Pepe being a decent Mexican man decided he would also ride a train car to bring back the wayward father and husband his brother had become.
On the way to the United States, Pepe somehow fell under a train car. As his body was sliced by the wheels of the rail cars, it pulled his body a little closer underneath the train literally slicing him into little pieces until it got to his neck at which point his head fell off and rolled down the enbankment.
My ex-wife further explained how when they later went to his funeral his head wasn't put in a normal sized casket but in a small box fashioned for that of a baby.

Anyway. Thank the Lord for the United States and the Constitution. Because of it we don't have to live in a League of Anglo American nations while we don't have to ride rail cars into Canada to mow tundra for a living.
Won't EVER know will we? The Federalist cabal coup took care of that.

Tyranny and Leviathan!! Good old Federalists and their centralized power state.

And yet you still defend and support them. Go figure! :rolleyes:

[Truth Warrior]

Franklin was a FREEMASON ELITE!

THE MASONIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers

[RockEnds]

Franklin was a FREEMASON ELITE!

THE MASONIC FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.watch.pair.com/mason.html#fathers

So Franklin is a black eye on the face of America?

[Truth Warrior]

So Franklin is a black eye on the face of America? Was he a Federalist?

[Truth Warrior]

Revolution of 1800

Some observers have regarded Jefferson's election in 1800 as revolutionary. This may be true in a restrained sense of the word, since the change from Federalist leadership to Republican was entirely legal and bloodless. Nevertheless, the changes were profound. The Federalists lost control of both the presidency and the Congress.

By 1800, the American people were ready for a change. Under Washington and Adams, the Federalists had established a strong government. They sometimes failed, however, to honor the principle that the American government must be responsive to the will of the people. They had followed policies that alienated large groups. For example, in 1798 they enacted a tax on houses, land and slaves, affecting every property owner in the country.

Jefferson had steadily gathered behind him a great mass of small farmers, shopkeepers and other workers; they asserted themselves in the election of 1800. Jefferson enjoyed extraordinary favor because of his appeal to American idealism. In his inaugural address, the first such speech in the new capital of Washington, D.C., he promised "a wise and frugal government" to preserve order among the inhabitants, but would "leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry, and improvement." Jefferson's mere presence in The White House encouraged democratic behavior. White House guests were encouraged to shake hands with the president, rather than bowing as had been the Federalist practice. Guests at state dinners were seated at round tables, which emphasized a sense of equality. He taught his subordinates to regard themselves merely as trustees of the people. He encouraged agriculture and westward expansion. Believing America to be a haven for the oppressed, he urged a liberal naturalization law.

Federalists feared the worst. Some worried that Jefferson, the great admirer of the French, would set up a guillotine on Capitol Hill.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h470.html

[RockEnds]

Was he a Federalist?

Does it even matter since he was a Freemason elitist? Which trumps which?

Yes. He is generally regarded as a Federalist.

[Truth Warrior]

Does it even matter since he was a Freemason elitist? Which trumps which?

Yes. He is generally regarded as a Federalist.
Read post #52 please, if you would.

BTW, Jefferson was not a freemason. ;)

[RockEnds]

Read post #52 please, if you would.

BTW, Jefferson was not a freemason. ;)

Sorry. I got a distracted by a phone call from a freemason who long-winded me. Ironic, but true.

Post #52 doesn't answer my question. Franklin was ten years dead. I doubt if he was very shook by Jefferson's election. I still don't know which is worse, being a mason or being a federalist. Not that it's important.

I'm really more interested in how Uncle Emanuel Watkins can figure that the son of a candlestick maker whose father couldn't even afford to provide him with an education was born into a high position.

[Truth Warrior]

Sorry. I got a distracted by a phone call from a freemason who long-winded me. Ironic, but true.

Post #52 doesn't answer my question. Franklin was ten years dead. I doubt if he was very shook by Jefferson's election. I still don't know which is worse, being a mason or being a federalist. Not that it's important.

I'm really more interested in how Uncle Emanuel Watkins can figure that the son of a candlestick maker whose father couldn't even afford to provide him with an education was born into a high position.

He wasn't. That's where the Freemasonry link comes in.<IMHO> ;)

[RockEnds]

He wasn't. That's where the Freemasonry link comes in.<IMHO> ;)

Well, at least you do allow for some upward mobility. ;)

[Truth Warrior]

Well, at least you do allow for some upward mobility. ;)
I was very young at the time. :D

Try out the previously posted USA Masonic Foundations link, for more information. ;)