- Old Talkshoe Programs
The Christian Institution of These United States of America, Part 1
William Finck in a discussion of John Hancock, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, George Mason, et al. and some of their documents proving that the American Constitution and other founding documents were Christian documents founded upon Christian principles and ideals.
Hello, this is William Finck and this is the second segment of our 10-10-10 day of prayer, and part one of my presentation on the Christian Institution of these United States of America. Today, over this two-part series, we will examine some of the professions and writings of the men who were chosen by our ancestors to lead and to found this nation. We will examine a representative collection of their documents, the early and official documents of this nation, and we will end with a discussion of our Constitution and its principal writers and inspiration. We will see beyond doubt that this is a Christian nation. You cannot see how far you have fallen, until you can see where you have been. All scoffers of history are haters of their own forebears, their own ancestors, and therefore hate their own selves.
When we as schoolchildren read the textbooks which describe the founding of this nation, we generally saw that they start off with a few vague details attempting to summarize certain incidents which occurred between the colonists and Britain in Colonial times: the revolts against undue taxation, the British responses to those revolts, and certain things that happened as a result of that responses. Then they attempt to explain the Declaration of Independence, while even the very people who wrote those textbooks have little actual understanding of it. The revolution did not, of course, begin with the Declaration of Independence, although many adult Americans today may think so. Rather, the Declaration of Independence was the result of nearly 11 years of Colonial rebellion against British tyranny. Understanding the political and cultural thought of those 11 years is instrumental to comprehending the words of that marvelous document. Of course, it is impossible for me to detail the history of those years here in their entirety, and since that is not even the sole purpose of these presentations today, I will only discuss some of the more important documents and figures of the period in relation to our Christian religion – for once they are examined, it is wholly evident that this great nation has an entirely Christian heritage. We ought to fight in order to keep it, but today, sadly, those same Americans who are ignorant of our foundations are also totally ignorant of what Christianity actually is, for the jew has also perverted that perception.
Today's judaized academics strive hard to secularize our perception of the founding of this nation. This is an aspect of that same endeavor which they have always undertaken, to destroy Christ and to once again enslave the Adamic Aryan man to their own Pharisaical rule over us. And with jewish money and influence, the result of which are Scofield, Bullinger, and all of their followers these past hundred years, the mainstream religious sects have become nothing more than worship-halls and idol-temples of the jews. They are very close to having us totally enslaved at this very moment – but little do they know that their failure and their destruction are impending, and are absolutely guaranteed. Therefore, when we read modern histories about colonial times, they either attempt to diminish Christianity as an aspect of our foundations, or they try to dismiss Biblical references in political documents as merely a way by which political figures patronized the common man. Both of these approaches are part of the jewish deception of our people today. Our colonial leaders were leaders because they were Godly Christian men, who actually risked life and limb, and not simply a standing in some bastard jew media mogul's poll results, in order to be our leaders.
America is the first and only nation to have been founded as a Christian nation. Today we shall begin to demonstrate that conclusion. First let me say, however, that I am without doubt that America is the nation foreseen at Jeremiah 3:14 where it states “ 14 Turn, O backsliding children, saith Yahweh; for I am married unto you: and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion”. And while there are other prophecies in Isaiah chapter 66, Daniel Chapters 7 and 12, and elsewhere which are certainly referencing this nation, I believe that Micah Chapter 4 is the most complete prophecy of America in the Scripture. Here I will repeat it entirely, with some comments:
KJV Micah 4:1 “But in the last days it shall come to pass, that the mountain of the house of Yahweh shall be established in the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills; and people shall flow unto it. [Remember Jeremiah 3:14 above.] 2 And many nations shall come, and say, Come, and let us go up to the mountain of Yahweh, and to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall go forth of Zion, and the word of Yahweh from Jerusalem. 3 And he shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong nations afar off; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. [Not all of this is fulfilled yet.] 4 But they shall sit every man under his vine and under his fig tree; and none shall make them afraid: for the mouth of the LORD of hosts hath spoken it. 5 For all people will walk every one in the name of his god, and we will walk in the name of Yahweh our God for ever and ever. [America has become a multi-religious land because of the peoples who have come here seeking our success.] 6 In that day, saith the LORD, will I assemble her that halteth [deported Israel], and I will gather her that is driven out [deported Israel], and her that I have afflicted [deported Israel]; 7 And I will make her that halted a remnant, and her that was cast far off a strong nation [The further we departed from Mesopotamia, the stronger we became in the nations which we established.]: and the LORD shall reign over them in mount Zion from henceforth, even for ever.8 And thou, O tower of the flock, the strong hold of the daughter of Zion, unto thee shall it come, even the first dominion; the kingdom shall come to the daughter of Jerusalem. 9 Now why dost thou cry out aloud? is there no king in thee? is thy counsellor perished? for pangs have taken thee as a woman in travail. [This perfectly describes us in America today.] 10 Be in pain, and labour to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in travail: for now shalt thou go forth out of the city, and thou shalt dwell in the field, and thou shalt go even to Babylon; there shalt thou be delivered; there the LORD shall redeem thee from the hand of thine enemies. 11 Now also many nations are gathered against thee, that say, Let her be defiled, and let our eye look upon Zion. 12 But they know not the thoughts of the LORD, neither understand they his counsel: for he shall gather them as the sheaves into the floor. 13 Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.”This surely describes America, and it is no mistake that this nation declared its freedom from the tyrannical institutions of the old world 2.520 years after the children of Israel first began to go into captivity.
For the first examples of the Christian institution and foundation of this nation I will draw from the life and works of the great Bostonian, John Hancock. Now because Hancock is best known for the large and bold signature which he placed on the Declaration of Independence, he is dismissed as egotistical or flamboyant. That alone is nothing more than typical jew slander. The real Hancock was a brave man with a solid Christian foundation. He was confident in his political position and his faith made him so. I do not believe that he wrote his name in such large letters out of ego, but rather as a manner of displaying his confidence in his inspired mission, and his faith in God that it would be fulfilled. Otherwise, he was risking his life and fortune for a cause that he may easily have avoided with all of his wealth. He knew well, like Gamaliel advised the Sanhedrin concerning Peter and John, that if God was on his side, there was no way that anyone could resist him.
John Hancock was a wealthy man, the nephew, apprentice, and sole heir of an uncle who became rich in the counting-house business, which was not a bank, but had to do as much with the place where businesses conducted their accounting as it did with the actual practice of accounting. Born in Quincy in 1737, Hancock had a privileged childhood and a Harvard education.
In 1765 the British Parliament began to tax the American colonists directly for the first time ever. The claim was that the King needed to recoup the costs of the 7-year French and Indian War. This was the Stamp Act. Until this time, colonists only paid taxes for the administration of the colonial governments, and this tax being demanded for the king was an addition to that. The American colonists rebelled against these taxes, primarily because they had no say in the legislature that imposed them – for the colonies had no seats and no voices in the British Parliament. Taxation without representation was correctly understood by the people as a form of slavery: something that is totally lost on us today. To me, this certainly seems like an attempt on the part of the British bankers to have the colonial people finance their efforts to secure the resources of the continent for themselves, a pattern which we have seen again and again in modern times.
In that same year John Hancock was chosen to represent Boston in the Massachusetts House of Representatives along with James Otis, Thomas Cushing, and the famous Samuel Adams. Eliot said of Hancock that "he blazed a Whig of the first magnitude" for his defying the taxes of the British Empire. The seizure of Hancock’s own sloop, the Liberty for an alleged evasion of the laws of trade, caused a riot in Massachusetts, with the royal commissioners of customs barely escaping with their lives. Now when was the last time that we saw a politician in this nation resist tyranny, and especially a wealthy politician? And when was the last time that we saw an entire city concerned with the government seizure of the property of one of its citizens? Today, we are a weak and enslaved people, and we do not even know it! Let me tell you something, Hancock was not chosen to the legislature because the Boston media portrayed him as some sort of prodigal pretty-boy. Rather, he was chosen because of his character and determination and will to fight for justice, and the people were obviously willing to fight alongside of him!
In 1767, in another attempt to obtain revenue from the colonies, the Townshend Revenue Acts were passed by Parliament, taxing imported paper, tea, glass, lead and paints. In February of 1768, Samuel Adams and James Otis drafted and the Massachusetts Assembly adopted a circular letter to be sent to the other American Assemblies protesting these taxes. They expressed the hope that redress could be obtained through petitions to King George III. The letter called for a convention to thrash out the issue of taxation without representation and issue a unified address to the Crown. [Here we have the embryo of that first legitimate federal government.] The British government, however, provoked a confrontation by ordering the Massachusetts Assembly to rescind the letter and ordered Governor Bernard to dismiss the assembly if they refused.
In protest to this and other British laws, John Hancock and other Selectman [which is what they called the assemblymen of the colony] called for a statewide “town meeting” at Faneuil Hall on September 23, 1768. 96 towns answered Hancock’s call to address taxation and self-government grievances against the British Crown on September 28th. The circular which called for the meeting, produced by Hancock and signed by four other Selectmen, had appealed to the right of every Englishman to representation in government, under the English Constitution, something assured to Englishmen at least since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 which Hancock refers to in the circular, and which the colonists were being deprived of. Hancock also pointed out that the presence of British troops in Boston upon imposition of the taxes was a sign that the colonists were being enslaved. He also warned that loyal citizens would resort to measures of desperation under such circumstances, although there is no talk of rebellion in the circular, but only a righteous appeal to English law. Indeed, it was England that was violating her own laws and customs, and oppressing a large portion of her own people.
This particular document had a demonstrable effect on New England society while the governor called for British reinforcements. Hancock’s convention composed a list of grievances, passed several resolutions, and adjourned. Two days later, royal transports unloaded British troops at the Long Wharf and began a military occupation of Boston that would last until March 17, 1776. It was the beginning of the end of British Colonialism in America. In response to the confrontation known as the Boston Massacre, on March 5th, 1770 Hancock, at the funeral of the slain Bostonians, delivered an address to the mourning citizens. So radiant and fearless was the speech in its condemnation of the conduct of the soldiery and their leaders that it greatly offended the Colonial Governor. Hancock's speech was printed in key American newspapers broadening his notoriety throughout the colonies.
Here I will read the final two paragraphs of that speech:
“But I thank God that America abounds in men who are superior to all temptation, whom nothing can divert from a steady pursuit of the interest of their country, who are at once its ornament and safeguard. And sure I am, I should not incur your displeasure, if I paid a respect, so justly due to their much-honored characters, in this place. But when I name an Adams [probably meaning Samuel], such a numerous host of fellow-patriots rush upon my mind, that I fear it would take up too much of your time, should I attempt to call over the illustrious roll. But your grateful hearts will point you to the men; and their revered names, in all succeeding times, shall grace the annals of America. [That is a prophetic statement, for indeed they do.] From them let us, my friends, take example; from them let us catch the divine enthusiasm; and feel, each for himself, the godlike pleasure of diffusing happiness on all around us; of delivering the oppressed from the iron grasp of tyranny; of changing the hoarse complaints and bitter moans of wretched slaves into those cheerful songs, which freedom and contentment must inspire. There is a heartfelt satisfaction in reflecting on our exertions for the public weal, which all the sufferings an enraged tyrant can inflict will never take away; which the ingratitude and reproaches of those whom we have saved from ruin cannot rob us of. The virtuous asserter of the rights of mankind merits a reward, which even a want of success in his endeavors to save his country, the heaviest misfortune which can befall a genuine patriot, cannot entirely prevent him from receiving. [Here Hancock displayed a true faith in the Christian principle of giving one's own life and property for the benefit of one's brethren. He professed good works, and it did not matter if he ever attended a denominational church.]
“I have the most animating confidence that the present noble struggle for liberty will terminate gloriously for America. And let us play the man for our God, and for the cities of our God; while we are using the means in our power, let us humbly commit our righteous cause to the great Lord of the Universe, who loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity. And having secured the approbation of our hearts, by a faithful and unwearied discharge of our duty to our country, let us joyfully leave our concerns in the hands of him who raiseth up and pulleth down the empires and kingdoms of the world as he pleases; and with cheerful submission to his sovereign will, devoutly say: 'Although the fig tree shall not blossom, neither shall fruit be in the vines; the labor of the olive shall fail, and the field shall yield no meat; the flock shall be cut off from the fold, and there shall be no herd in the stalls; yet we will rejoice in the Lord, we will joy in the God of our salvation.'” [Hancock quotes Habakkuk 3:17-18]
Earlier in the speech Hancock had spoken of the paid British soldiers, when he said that they "for the addition of one penny a day to their wages, would desert from the Christian cross and fight under the crescent of the Turkish Sultan." By saying that, he clearly understood that even the Union Jack was a Christian symbol. He also displayed a correct view, lost on most Americans today, that standing armies are no more than bands of mercenaries themselves, volunteers or not, and that the true militia can only be comprised of the common people.
In 1774 Hancock was elected, with Samuel Adams, to the Provincial congress at Concord, Massachusetts, and he subsequently became its president. The commanding British General ordered a military expedition to Concord in April, 1775 to capture Hancock and Adams. This military movement resulted in the Battle of Lexington. The British arrival on April 18th forced Joseph Warren to call out the Minute Men. Upon learning of the British plans to capture Hancock and Adams, Warren dispatched Paul Revere, who wrote that “About 10 o'clock, Dr. Warren sent in a great haste for me, and begged that I would immediately set off for Lexington, where Messrs. Hancock and Adams were....”
Revere was rowed across the Charles River to Charlestown by two friends where he checked first with members of the Sons of Liberty that Warren's call to arms – which were the Old Church signals - had been seen. Revere then borrowed a horse from Deacon Larkin and began his famous ride. Revere reported on his ride north along the Mystic River, “I awakened the Captain of the minute men; and after that I alarmed almost every house till I got to Lexington. I found Messrs. Hancock and Adams at the Rev. Mr. Clark's; I told them my errand....” Revere then helped Adams and Hancock escape, and at 4:30 AM he wrote that “Mr Lowell asked me to go to the tavern with him, to get a trunk of papers belonging to Mr. Hancock. We went up Chamber; and while we were getting the trunk, we saw the British very near, upon a full march.” It was at that time, while collecting the trunk that Revere recalls hearing “The shot heard 'round the world” on the Lexington Green. Revere wrote, “When we got about 100 Yards from the meeting-house the British troops appeared on both sides... I saw and heard a gun fired... Then I could distinguish two guns, and then a continual roar of musketry; Then we made off with the trunk.” Hancock and Adams both escaped the British.
Following the April battles at Lexington and Concord, the British soldiers returned to Boston quartering the community. On 12 June, General Gage issued a proclamation offering pardons to all the rebels, excepting Samuel Adams and John Hancock, “whose offences,” it was declared, “are of too flagitious [cruel or villainous] a nature to admit of any other consideration than that of condign [very worthy] punishment.”
The next battle was the famous Bunker Hill. That same Dr. Warren who had saved the lives of Hancock and Adams at Lexington lost his life at Bunker Hill. This left a leadership vacuum that Hancock himself would fill, and Hancock became a delegate from Massachusetts to the Continental Congress, a post which he held from 1775 to 1780, and again from 1785 to 1786. He was its third president, in the Second Continental Congress, and served from May of 1775 through October of 1777. Both Samuel and John Adams – who were cousins and also delegates – supported Hancock in becoming president. Hancock was president when the Declaration of Independence was presented and approved by the congress. He also served as president during the Third Continental Congress in 1785 and 1786. In the interim, Hancock was a major general in the Continental Army – something that he wanted to also lead, but he lost out to Washington after Washington was nominated by Hancock ally John Adams. This demonstrates that Adams cared for experience above friendship: for these men were absolutely serious in their life-and-death endeavours, and so it was Hancock who signed Washington's commission. Between his terms in the congress Hancock was also the first governor of an independent Massachusetts, from 1780-1785.
As president of the Continental Congress, Hancock began with this resolution of July 6, 1775, the Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking Up Arms that fell short of calls for independence, but asserted that Americans were ready to die rather than to be enslaved. In this resolution Congress openly invoked their Christian God stating:
“Our cause is just. Our union is perfect. Our internal resources are great, and, if necessary, foreign assistance is undoubtedly attainable. -- We gratefully acknowledge, as signal instances of the Divine favour towards us, that his Providence would not permit us to be called into this severe controversy, until we were grown up to our present strength, had been previously exercised in warlike operation, and possessed of the means of defending ourselves. With hearts fortified with these animating reflections, we most solemnly, before God and the world, declare, that, exerting the utmost energy of those powers, which our beneficent Creator hath graciously bestowed upon us, the arms we have been compelled by our enemies to assume, we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves.” [Again, it is a damned shame that Christians today have no such conviction. They would rather live sinful lives in slavery, than lead moral lives and be free. Which yoke is more burdensome, the yoke of Christ, or the yoke which the devil has on us now? Today our people have chosen for themselves the yoke of the devil, and they know it not.]
Thomas Paine's Common Sense was published in January, 1776. it was read all over the Christian world, translations having been made into German, Danish and Russian. Perhaps as many as a half million copies were sold in the opening years of the Revolutionary War. Paine's work changed the political climate in America from one of seeking an address of grievances before the King to one of actually pushing for independence. Then on March 16th of 1776, Hancock's Congress passed an official congressional resolution. This proclamation signed by President Hancock made May 17th, 1776 a "Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies. The Continental Congress urged its fellow citizens to “confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his [God's] righteous displeasure, and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness.” So we see that the leaders of the Continental government saw their oppression by the English Parliament to be a result of sin, as educated men at one time certainly understood that crisis, which is also the Greek word for judgement, was a result of the wrath of God on sinners. We also see that they appealed to the people for repentance, and to Jesus Christ for deliverance, as Christian men should do, and as non-Christians or mere Deists would never do.
The Colony of Massachusetts almost immediately ordered a “suitable number” of these proclamations to be printed so "that each of the religious assemblies in this colony, may be furnished with a copy of the same" and they added the motto “God Save This People” as a substitute for "God Save the King." So it is clear, that Christianity was the religion of the colony and the nation.
Common Sense had ignited debates where the people spoke openly and often for independence. The Second Continental Congress would take to heart Paine's suggestion by proclaiming that: “However strange it may appear to some, or however unwilling they may be to think so, matters not, but many strong and striking reasons may be given, to show, that nothing can settle our affairs so expeditiously as an open and determined declaration for independence.” Common Sense was replete with evocations to the Almighty God and with Biblical quotes that made a theological case for independence from Great Britain. Clearly, it also inspired the Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer proclaimed by the congress.
Specifically the 1776 Journals of Congress record the resolution thus:
Mr. William Livingston, pursuant to leave granted, brought in a resolution for appointing a fast, which being taken into consideration, was agreed to as follows:
In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publicly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offenses against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.
The Congress, therefore, considering the warlike preparations of the British Ministry to subvert our invaluable rights and privileges, and to reduce us by fire and sword, by the savages of the wilderness, and our own domestics, to the most abject and ignominious bondage: Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprises, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of
appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; and by inclining their hearts to justice and benevolence, prevent the further effusion of kindred blood. But if, continuing deaf to the voice of reason and humanity, and inflexibly bent, on desolation and war, they constrain us to repel their hostile invasions by open resistance, that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honorable and permanent basis--That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labor on the said day.
Resolved, That the foregoing resolve be published.
John Hancock, President
Charles Thomson, Secretary
This proclamation was first printed in the Philadelphia Gazette on March 20th, 1776, and one can be certain that there were no whining complaints from the jews about the Christian statements that it contained. Charles Thomson, the Secretary of the congress, is the same man who translated the Greek Septuagint manuscripts of the Old Testament which so many of us use or are at least familiar with today. How could there be any doubt, with these documents alone, that America was a Christian nation formed by Christian men and based upon Christian principles?
Of course, the most important event of Hancock's presidency was the adoption of the resolutions for independence. What few know, is that before the official Declaration of Independence was finally ratified by the congress on July 4th, a shorter resolution had been introduced on July the 2nd by Richard Henry Lee and John Adams, and which was voted on and passed by the delegations of all the colonies except New York, and which officially established these United States of America from what had been known as the United Colonies of America. The New York delegates had been ordered by their state legislature not to vote upon or sign any proclamations of independence, however with the influence of John Hancock and especially John Jay, the New York legislature did vote to join the cause on July 9th.
John Hancock, the third president of the Continental Congress, went on to become the seventh president of the Confederation Congress, and although he was elected by the people of Boston and elevated to president by the Congress itself, due to poor health he did not actually serve, but resigned in 1786 and retired from public life. Therefore closing our discussion concerning one of the more illustrious of the presidents of the Confederation Congress, let us now talk briefly about its first: Samuel Huntington. The Confederation Congress, distinguished from the Continental Congress in that now the nation was a confederation of independent States, and so its political existence as an official governmental organ was legitimate. It had ten presidents, and these were really the first presidents of the United States.
The following is taken chiefly from an abridged 1848 edition of Sanderson's Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence, first written before 1820, and the database from the University of Virginia library was also utilized, along with other sources:
Samuel Huntington was the descendant of an ancient and respectable family, which emigrated at an early period into this country, and landed at Saybrook, in the province of Connecticut. His father, Nathaniel Huntington, was a plain, but worthy farmer, who followed his occupation in the town where Samuel was born, in Windham, Connecticut, on the third day of July, 1732. Samuel's opportunities of acquiring knowledge were extremely limited, and he received no other education than the common schools of Connecticut at that period afforded. Gifted, however, with an excellent understanding, and a strong taste for mental improvement, he employed all his leisure hours in reading and study. At the age of twenty-two years, when he abandoned his agricultural pursuits to engage in the study of the law, he had acquired, principally from his own unassisted exertions, an excellent common education. In the knowledge of the Latin language, his progress was considerable, but it does not appear that he directed his attention to any other foreign tongue. Having attained a competent knowledge of the general principles of law, he commenced his professional career in the town of Windham.
In 1760, he removed to Norwich: at this period his reputation as a man of talents became more extensive, and his success and celebrity as a lawyer and an advocate, made a correspondent progress...few lawyers enjoyed a more extensive practice, or attracted more general applause. From his good sense, intelligence, and integrity, his preferment was remarkably rapid : in a few years his character as a man of business and punctuality was firmly established; his reputation as a lawyer was exalted, and his extensive practice included all the important cases of his native county, as well as of those which bordered upon it. In the thirtieth year of his age he married Martha, the daughter of the Rev. Ebenezer Devotion. [So he was married to the daughter of a pastor.] The consequence of this conjugal relation, although no offspring cemented the union, was the enjoyment of pure domestic felicity, until the decease of Mrs. Huntington.... Having no offspring, Mr. Huntington adopted two of the children of his brother, the Rev. Joseph Huntington, to whom, having married sisters, he was doubly united.... [So Samuel Huntington also had a brother who was a Christian pastor.]
In 1764, Mr. Huntington commenced his political labours as a representative of the town of Norwich in the general assembly; and in the following year, received the office of king's attorney [the modern equivalent of a state prosecutor], which he sustained with reputation until more important services induced him to relinquish it. In 1774, he was appointed an associate judge in the superior court, and in the following year, a member of the council of Connecticut. Being decided in his opposition to the claims and oppressions of the British parliament, and active in his exertions in favour of the colonies, the general assembly of Connecticut, properly appreciating his talents and patriotism, appointed him a delegate to congress, on the second Thursday of October, 1775. [Here we may observe that while many of the more illustrious founders of this nation had come from privileged backgrounds, here we see a man of humble origin who rose up through hard work had also sacrificed his wealth and the position he had attained on behalf of his nation.]
On the sixteenth of January, 1776, he took his seat in ... assembly, and in ... July, voted in favour of the Declaration of Independence. In this high station, he devoted his talents and time to the public service, during several successive years. His stern integrity, and inflexible patriotism, rendered him a prominent member.... He zealously performed the duties of this office during the years 1776 ... [through] 1780, when he returned to Connecticut, and resumed his station upon the bench, and seat in the council, which had been continued vacant until his return. [He was so highly thought of that the people of Connecticut left his job open for him for nearly five years!] The estimation in which Mr. Huntington was held by his fellow members, may be properly appreciated from his appointment, on the twenty-eighth of September, 1779, to the highest civil dignity of the country. On the resignation of the honourable John Jay, who had been appointed minister plenipotentiary to negotiate a treaty of amity and commerce, and of alliance, between the United States of America and his Catholic majesty [meaning the king of France], Mr. Huntington was elected president of congress: in 1780, he was re-elected to the same honourable office, which he continued to fill with dignity and impartiality until the following year, when, worn out by the constant cares of public life, and his unremitting application to his official duties, he desired leave of absence, and intimated to the house the necessity of his returning home for the re-establishment of his health. The nomination of his successor was, however, postponed by congress, which appeared unwilling to dispense with the services of a president, whose practical worth had been so long and amply displayed. After the expiration of two months, Mr. Huntington, on the sixth of July, 1781, more explicitly declared that his ill state of health would not permit him to continue longer in the exercise of the duties of that office, and renewed his application for leave of absence. His resignation was then accepted... After having thus pursued his congressional career with distinguished success, rising by the energy of his own mind and the perseverance of self-instruction, from the plough to the presidency, Mr. Huntington, in August, 1781, resumed his judicial functions in the superior court of Connecticut, and his station in the council of that state. His rapid exaltation had not proved prejudicial to his mind or manners, but he returned to his constituents in the same plain and unassuming character which had first attracted their confidence and admiration.
On the second Thursday in May, 1782, he was again elected a delegate to congress, but it does not appear that he joined his colleagues in that body during the year for which he was then appointed. Having been re-appointed on the second Thursday of May, 1783, he resumed his seat in congress on the following twenty-ninth of July.... He continued, without intermission, to perform his duties in congress until its adjournment to Annapolis on the fourth of November, 1783, when he finally retired from the great council of the nation, of which he had so long been a conspicuous and influential member. In 1784, soon after his return from congress, he was appointed chief justice of the superior court of Connecticut, and after discharging the duties of that office for one year, was elected lieutenant-governor of the state. Having at all times a perfect command over his passions, he presided on the bench with great ability and impartiality: no judge in Connecticut was more dignified in his deportment, more courteous and polite to the gentlemen of the bar, nor more respected by the particular parties interested in the proceedings of the court, as well as the public in general. His name and his virtues are frequently mentioned by those who remember him in his judicial capacity, with respect and veneration. In 1786, he succeeded Governor Griswold, as chief magistrate of the state, and continued to be annually re-elected, with singular unanimity, until his death. This excellent man and undeviating patriot died in Norwich, on the fifth day of January, 1796, in the sixty-fourth year of his age.... Although afflicted with a complication of disorders, particularly the dropsy in the chest, his death was tranquil and exemplary, and previous to the singular debility both of mind and body under which he laboured a few days before that event, his religious confidence continued firm and unwavering.... Mr. Huntington was a man of profound thought and penetration, of great prudence and practical wisdom, of patient investigation and singular perseverance, of distinguished moderation and equanimity: he was cool and deliberate, moderate and circumspect in all his actions, and possessed of a clear and sound mind. It may truly be said that no man ever possessed greater mildness or equanimity than Mr. Huntington. A living witness can attest, that during a long residence of twenty-four years in his family, he never, in a single instance, exhibited the slightest symptoms of anger, nor spoke one word calculated to wound the feelings of another, or to injure an absent person. He was the friend of order and of religion, a member of the Christian church, and punctual in the devotions of the family. But the eulogy of words can never exalt the memory which is not previously embalmed in the progress of an exemplary life. For many years a professor of religion, Mr. Huntington appeared to enjoy great satisfaction both in the doctrines and ordinances of the gospel; a constant attendant upon public worship, “he was occasionally the people's mouth to God, when destitute of preaching.” As a professor of Christianity, and supporter of its institutions, he was exemplary and devout: he manifested an unshaken faith in its doctrines, amid the distresses of declining life, until debility of mind and body, produced by his last illness, rendered him incapable of social intercourse.
While nations often do not choose their own leaders, being ruled instead by tyrants or hereditary rulers, you can tell a lot about a people and a nation when you look at the rulers that they do select for themselves, when they have the freedom to do so. And such is Samuel Huntington of Connecticut, in whom the people of that state repeatedly placed so much of their trust, a devout Christian, and both the brother and son-in-law of Christian pastors. Not to diminish Washington, in reality Huntington was also the first actual president of these United States. The following is from the biography of Samuel Huntington found at the Huntington Family Association's website:
“For nothing was Mr. Huntington more marked through his entire public life than for his conscientious discharge of religious duties. In his family, in the prayer meeting, in the public services of the sanctuary, he was always found at his post and always ready for whatever duty the hour called him to perform. Old men who have died in our times, have recalled the fervor of his prayers and the unction of his exhortations in the social meetings; and the testimony of all who knew him, is uniform as to the steadfastness of his Christian principle, and the purity of his Christian character.”
In a letter from Huntington written to Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., on January 3, 1780, we find this: “I find one consolation very necessary in public life: that is, to believe or at least to act as if I did fully believe there are many wise men who can judge better than myself on important subjects, and I have the happiness generally to unite in promoting their determinations, as far as duty requires in any sphere I am called to act in." So here we see that the Christian people of Connecticut did indeed follow the advice of the apostle Paul, where he advised us that “if you should have trial of things pertaining to this life, those who esteem themselves least in the assembly, those will be set to judge,” at 1 Corinthians 6:4. Huntington was indeed a humble and discreet man. I have read dozens of his wartime letters. And they were always very terse, having to deal only with the direct matter at hand in the business of conducting the war. Many of them were written to Washington himself, and the rest mostly to governors or other officers. In his final letter to Washington, relating his resignation and replacement, he writes in part “The Enemy at present in every Part of the United States seem to be reduced to a Situation merely on the defensive, and should the States improve the Opportunity with proper & vigorous Exertions, we have Reason to hope from the Smiles of Providence, yet more favorable Events.” Nearly all of his other wartime letters are only a line or two, and always signed “Your Excellency's Most obedient & most humble Servant...” or “Your Most obedient & most humble Servant...” and “Samuel Huntington, President ”.
This will end my discussion of Samuel Huntington, whose term as president during the height of the actual fighting of the Revolution was greatly embattled, and who worked very closely with Washington in the struggle for victory. Now I want to say a few words about John Adams, commonly considered to be our second president after Washington, although there were certainly ten presidents before Washington – who were all president when it was quite risky to hold the office and who therefore deserve at least as much distinction as Washington.
John Adams, was born in that part of the town of Braintree, Massachusetts, which has since been set off as the town of Quincy, on October 31st 1735; and he died there on July 4th 1826. His great-grandfather, Henry Adams, received a grant of about 40 Acres of land in Braintree in 1736, and soon afterward immigrated from Devon shire, England, with his eight sons. John Adams was the eldest of those sons. His father, one of the selectmen of Braintree and a deacon of the Church, was a thrifty farmer, and at his death in 1760 his estate was appraised at over £1,330, which in those days might have been regarded as a moderate wealth. It was the custom of the family to send the eldest son to College, and accordingly John was graduated at Harvard in 1755. Previous to 1773 the graduates of Harvard were arranged in lists, not alphabetically or in order of merit, but according to the social standing of their parents. In a class of twenty-four members John thus stood fourteenth. After taking his degree and while waiting to make his choice of a profession, Adams took charge of the grammar school at Worcester. It was the year of Braddock's defeat, when the smoldering fires of a century of rivalry between France and England broke out in a blaze of war, which was forever to settle the question of the primacy of the English race in the modern world. Adams took an intense interest in the struggle, and predicted that if we could only drive out "these turbulent Gallists," our numbers would in another century exceed those of the British, and all Europe would be unable to subdue us. [I will talk about this from Franklin's perspective in the next segment of this presentation.] In sending him to College his family seemed to have hoped that he would become a clergyman; but he soon found himself too much of a free thinker to feel at home in the pulpit of that day. When accused of Arminianism, he cheerfully admitted the charge. Later in life he was sometimes called a Unitarian, but of dogmatic Christianity he seems to have had as little as Franklin or Jefferson. "Where do we find," he asks, "a precept in the gospel requiring ecclesiastical synods, convocations, councils, decrees, creeds, confessions, oaths, subscriptions, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days." In this mood he turned from the ministry and began the study of law at Worcester. There was then a strong prejudice against lawyers in New England, but the profession throve lustily nevertheless, because the people were so litigious. In 1758 Adams began the practice of his profession in Suffolk County, having his residence in Braintree.
Here we will take a brief aside and see what Arminianism is, since Adams “cheerfully accepted” being labelled as one, from Wikipedia:
Arminianism is a school of soteriological [having to do with salvation] thought within Protestant Christianity based on the theological ideas of the Dutch Reformed theologian Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) and his historic followers, the Remonstrants. The doctrine's acceptance stretches through much of mainstream Christianity, including evangelical Protestantism. Arminianism holds to the following tenets:
Humans are naturally unable to make any effort towards salvation. They possess free will to accept or reject salvation.
Salvation is possible only by God's grace, which cannot be merited.
No works of human effort can cause or contribute to salvation.
God's election is conditional on faith in the sacrifice and Lordship of Jesus Christ.
Christ's atonement was made on behalf of all people.
God allows his grace to be resisted by those who freely reject Christ.
Believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace through persistent, unrepented-of sin.
If Adams were a follower of Arminius, as he professed to be, then he was certainly a Christian, even though not any more or less perfect than most of those many of the other sects! However if he rejected “ecclesiastical synods, convocations, councils, decrees, creeds, confessions, oaths, subscriptions, and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days” then he was a better Christian than most church-goers, who put their reliance upon rituals, and not upon faith and good deeds. Adams also displayed a complete familiarity of the Gospel in his statements here.
Here I shall comment that the problem with mainstream interpretations of the religion of those greater thinkers who founded this nation is this: that by the term “Christian” they mean to describe one who subjects himself to a mainstream cult. In other words, if you do not belong to one of the popular sects, they do not esteem you to be a Christian! Yet our founders were indeed Christians, and true Christians at that: for many of them rejected the trumpery of the mainstream cults!
Here is the opening paragraph of John Adams' inaugural address:
When it was first perceived, in early times, that no middle course for America remained between unlimited submission to a foreign legislature and a total independence of its claims, men of reflection were less apprehensive of danger from the formidable power of fleets and armies they must determine to resist than from those contests and dissensions which would certainly arise concerning the forms of government to be instituted over the whole and over the parts of this extensive country. Relying, however, on the purity of their intentions, the justice of their cause, and the integrity and intelligence of the people, under an overruling Providence which had so signally protected this country from the first [Here is what Adams thought of our freedom!], the representatives of this nation, then consisting of little more than half its present number, not only broke to pieces the chains which were forging and the rod of iron that was lifted up, but frankly cut asunder the ties which had bound them, and launched into an ocean of uncertainty.
Now what follows is from the fifth and sixth paragraphs of the same address, and it fully reflects what a pious man, a truly brilliant and thinking Christian man who was highly esteemed by all of his peers, thought of the newly ratified Constitution:
Employed in the service of my country abroad during the whole course of these transactions, I first saw the Constitution of the United States in a foreign country. [Adams was actually the ambassador to, of all places, Great Britain!] Irritated by no literary altercation, animated by no public debate, heated by no party animosity, I read it with great satisfaction, as the result of good heads prompted by good hearts, as an experiment better adapted to the genius, character, situation, and relations of this nation and country than any which had ever been proposed or suggested. In its general principles and great outlines it was conformable to such a system of government as I had ever most esteemed, and in some States, my own native State in particular, had contributed to establish. Claiming a right of suffrage, in common with my fellow-citizens, in the adoption or rejection of a constitution which was to rule me and my posterity, as well as them and theirs, I did not hesitate to express my approbation of it on all occasions, in public and in private. It was not then, nor has been since, any objection to it in my mind that the Executive and Senate were not more permanent. [He compares these to the equivalent offices in Britain, being King and Lord, which were lifetime offices.] Nor have I ever entertained a thought of promoting any alteration in it but such as the people themselves, in the course of their experience, should see and feel to be necessary or expedient, and by their representatives in Congress and the State legislatures, according to the Constitution itself, adopt and ordain.
Returning to the bosom of my country after a painful separation from it for ten years, I had the honor to be elected to a station under the new order of things, and I have repeatedly laid myself under the most serious obligations to support the Constitution. The operation of it has equaled the most sanguine expectations of its friends, and from an habitual attention to it, satisfaction in its administration, and delight in its effects upon the peace, order, prosperity, and happiness of the nation I have acquired an habitual attachment to it and veneration for it. What other form of government, indeed, can so well deserve our esteem and love?
The thirteenth paragraph of the address is quite long, and therefore I will only take a couple of excerpts from it. Adams, discussing the virtues of the Constitution and how to defend it, tells us in a much longer discourse of these things that “if a love of virtuous men of all parties and denominations; if a love of science and letters and a wish to patronize every rational effort to encourage schools, colleges, universities, academies, and every institution for propagating knowledge, virtue, and religion among all classes of the people, not only for their benign influence on the happiness of life in all its stages and classes, and of society in all its forms, but as the only means of preserving our Constitution from its natural enemies, the spirit of sophistry, the spirit of party, the spirit of intrigue, the profligacy of corruption, and the pestilence of foreign influence, which is the angel of destruction to elective governments....” So we see that John Adams would have encouraged every part of our educational system to propagate religion! Remember that this is from his inaugural address for the office of President! How have we fallen for the satanic jewish claptrap of the ADL and the ACLU? After continuing for some time he then concludes the paragraph by stating that “I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect.” This last statement alone proves beyond doubt that Adams was a sure Christian.
Now for the closing paragraph of the address:
And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.
John Adams was a wealthy man, and he was already elected to the nation's highest office. He was campaigning for nothing. His words can by no means be seen as patronizing anyone. John Adams, Christian, patriot and statesman, and a trained and practicing lawyer in a time when the term Christian Lawyer could still be comprehended. If anyone could read his work, a man who had risked everything for his convictions, and not agree that America was founded as a Christian nation on Christian principles, and that the constitution was certainly a Christian document, that man must be a fool. We will see this perspective proven with absolute certainty when we get to discussing James Madison. People like Ted Weiland and all of his anti-Constitution followers are nothing but clowns working for the interests of the jews.
Ben Franklin on Race: From Chapter 8, pp. 217-218, of Benjamin Franklin by Carl Van Doren
Almost half a century before Malthus, Franklin saw that the means of subsistence determined the increase of population, through its effect on the ease or difficulty of marriage. "There is, in short, no bound to the prolific nature of plants or animals but what is made by their crowding and interfering with each other's means of subsistence. Was the face of the earth vacant of other plants, it might be gradually sowed and overspread with one kind only; as, for instance, with fennel. And were it empty of other inhabitants, it might in a few ages be replenished from one nation only; as, for instance, with Englishmen. Thus there are supposed to be now upwards of one million English souls in North America (though 'tis thought scarce 80,000 have been brought over sea), and yet perhaps there is not one fewer in Britain, but rather many more, on account of the employment the colonies afford to manufacturers at home. This million, doubling suppose but once in twenty-five years, will in another century be more than the people of England, and the greatest number of Englishmen will be on this side the water. What an accession of power to the British Empire by sea as well as land! What increase of trade and navigation! What numbers of ships and seamen! ... How important an affair then to Britain is the present treaty for settling the bounds between her colonies and the French, and how careful should she be to secure room enough, since on the room depends so much the increase of her people."
Here is the earliest clear statement of the function of the American frontier. [These are Van Doren's words now.] By giving room enough, Franklin thought, it would furnish opportunity for many ages of unchecked human increase and prosperity. Thanks to it, life in America had an enormous future - the life of the whole country, not merely of this or that colony. It could not be regulated from London, because static England would not understand dynamic America. Americans who knew their own natures must make their own rules. But Franklin had still no notion of American independence except for local rights and responsibilities within the frame of empire. The American frontier was the British frontier, and rising America a part of widening Britain.
In the midst of his imaginative imperialism he had a touch of Anglo-Saxon insularity, and in the first edition of his Increase of Mankind — though not the later ones — he questioned the admission of any but Englishmen to the colonies. "Why should the Palatine boors [meaning Germans] be suffered to swarm into our settlements and, by herding together, establish their language and manners to the exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a colony of aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us, instead of our Anglifying them?" Franklin was at the time resentful of the Pennsylvania Germans, who were politically backward and intractable, economically below English standards. But he ended his remarks, though with bad ethnology, yet with better temper. "The number of purely white people in the world is proportionally very small. All Africa is black or tawny; Asia chiefly tawny; America (exclusive of the newcomers) wholly so. And in Europe the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians, and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet by clearing America of woods and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings darken its people? Why increase the sons of Africa by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawnys, of increasing the lovely red and white? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my country, for such kind of partiality is natural to mankind." (It should be noted that Franklin in 1755 was a trustee, with some of the most eminent citizens of Pennsylvania, of a charitable scheme to provide relief and instruction for poor German settlers.)
Remember John Adams, who wanted to drive out the French, and see America settled with none other than Englishmen, hoping their numbers would exceed those of Europe, and Adams was certainly a Christian. Our founders were Christians, non-Sectarian rejecters of the priesthood, and they were centered around their own race. We in Christian Identity are their spiritual heirs! True Christianity and racism are not disparate ideas, but are absolutely cohesive. Here we have seen that same attitude which Adams had concerning the populating of America was also elaborated upon by Benjamin Franklin.
Was Benjamin Franklin a Christian? He described himself as a “logical deist” as a young man, a viewpoint he was supposedly won over to after reading unconvincing arguments against it. The humanist historians of today love to capitalize on this. Later, Franklin said this in his Proposals Relating to the Education of Youth in Pennsylvania: “History will also afford frequent Opportunities of showing the Necessity of a Public Religion, from its Usefulness to the Public; the Advantage of a Religious Character among private Persons; the Mischiefs of Superstition, &c. and the Excellency of the Christian Religion above all others ancient or modern” (the entire text is found in the internet archives of the University of Pennsylvania). He repeatedly and sincerely referred to God as Providence, but that was commonly the educated man's way of referring to God in the age of the Enlightenment. He was a moral man who conveyed moral ideas, and even in letters had whimsically contemplated the afterlife, showing at least a belief in the possibility. As a young man, he wrote this to his sister, from chapter 4 of Benjamin Franklin, by Carl Van Doren: “Sister, farewell, and remember that modesty, as it makes the most homely virgin amiable and charming, so the want of it infallibly renders the most perfect beauty disagreeable and odious. But when that brightest of female virtues shines among other perfections of body and mind in the same person, it makes the woman more lovely than an angel.”
The following is a letter, from franklinpapers.org, which was written by Benjamin Franklin to Ezra Stiles, the President of Yale College, on March 9, 1790:
You desire to know something of my Religion. It is the first time I have been questioned upon it: But I do not take your Curiosity amiss, and shall endeavour in a few Words to gratify it. Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them. As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting Changes, and I have with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his Divinity: tho’ it is a Question I do not dogmatise upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble. I see no harm however in its being believed, if that Belief has the good Consequence as probably it has, of making his Doctrines more respected and better observed, especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the Believers, in his Government of the World, with any particular Marks of his Displeasure. I shall only add respecting myself, that having experienced the Goodness of that Being, in conducting me prosperously thro’ a long Life, I have no doubt of its Continuance in the next, tho’ without the smallest Conceit of meriting such Goodness. My Sentiments in this Head you will see in the Copy of an old Letter enclosed, which I wrote in answer to one from a zealous Religionist whom I had relieved in a paralitic Case by Electricity, and who being afraid I should grow proud upon it, sent me his serious, tho’ rather impertinent, Cautions. I send you also the Copy of another Letter, which will shew something of my Disposition relating to Religion. With great and sincere Esteem and Affection, I am, Dear Sir, Your obliged old Friend and most obedient humble Servant
Franklin wrote a postscript as follows:
p.s. Had not your College some Present of Books from the King of France? Please to let me know if you had an Expectation given you of more, and the Nature of that Expectation. I have a Reason for the Enquiry. (I confide, that you will not expose me to Criticism and Censure by publishing any part of this Communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious Sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me insupportable and even absurd. All Sects here, and we have a great Variety, have experienced my Good will in assisting them with Subscriptions for building their new Places of Worship, and as I have never opposed any of their Doctrines I hope to go out of the World in Peace with them all.)
Revd. Dr. Stiles, President of Yale College &c
Endorsed in margin: Recd from Dr Franklin 26 March 1790 Dr. Franklin died April 17. 1790 At. 85.
Franklin was certainly a Christian, and especially in practice. One does not have to wear it on one's sleeve to be a Christian. But to seek to follow the moral teachings of Christ, that is a Christian! Our idea of Christians today is that they should go to church every Sunday, participate for an hour in whatever they do in those places, and then do whatever we wish the rest of the week because we are already somehow “saved”. Christ would say of these people that “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from Me!” Franklin never displayed such a false piety, but rather had His heart set on Him.
Now I must turn my attention southward, and to the great State of Virginia, from where many more decent and illustrious Christian men rose up to help build this nation. And I will start with one of the most obvious, but to most Americans today, one of the most obscure. His name is George Mason.
The words of George Mason have inspired generations of Americans and others throughout the world. Mason was among the first to call for such basic American liberties as freedom of the press, religious tolerance - as opposed to forced Anglicanism - and the right to a trial by jury. George Mason was born in 1725 and was a fourth generation Virginian, Mason lived with his family on a Fairfax County plantation. His father drowned in a boating accident when Mason was ten, and his mother was left to raise George and two other children alone.
After studying with tutors and attending a private academy in Maryland, at age 21 Mason took over his inheritance of approximately 20,000 acres spread across several counties in Virginia and Maryland. Four years later, in 1750, Mason married 16 year old Ann Eilbeck with whom he had nine surviving children. Mason was devastated when she died in 1773 at the age of 39. Relying on his eldest daughter to help run the domestic side of the plantation’s operation, Mason remained a widower until 1780 when he married Sarah Brent. Like John Hancock, he was another very wealthy man who risked everything for his nation.
Although highly respected by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Mason did not aspire to join his peers in public office. When he was asked to take Washington’s seat in the Virginia legislature, a slot vacated when Washington was named Chief of the Continental Army, Mason reluctantly agreed. In 1776 he was Fairfax County’s representative to the Virginia Convention and was appointed to the committee to draft a Declaration of Rights and a Constitution to allow Virginia to act as an independent political body.
Complaining about the “useless Members” of the committee, Mason soon found himself authoring the first draft of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. Drawing from philosopher John Locke, among others, this document was the first in America to call for freedom of the press, tolerance of religion [meaning different forms of Christianity, as we shall see], proscription of unreasonable searches, and the right to a fair and speedy trial.
In 1787, Mason was chosen to attend the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, where he was one of the most vocal debaters. Concerned over the amount of power given to the federal government Mason refused to sign the Constitution. One of three dissenters, Mason’s refusal to support the new Constitution made him unpopular and destroyed his friendship with Washington, who later referred to Mason as his “former friend”.
However Mason’s refusal was based upon a defense of individual liberties which reverberated throughout the colonies, and a public outcry ensued. As a result, at the first session of the First Congress, James Madison took up the cause and introduced a bill of rights that echoed Mason’s Declaration of Rights. The resulting amendments to the Constitution, also called the Bill of Rights, pleased Mason, who said, “I have received much Satisfaction from the Amendments to the federal Constitution, which have lately passed…” Invited to become one of Virginia’s senators in the First US Senate, Mason declined and finally was able to retire to Gunston Hall, where he remained until his death on October 7, 1792.
Mason was concerned about the deprivation of individual rights by a strong federal government, and he would assuredly take up arms again if he were alive today. It is also certain that Mason was no glory-seeker, but rather desired to stay out of office and the public eye. He was a highly respected man who was pressed into service by his peers. Here I will read the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and when we hear it, not only will it sound quite familiar, obviously being a primary source of inspiration for the writings of both Jefferson and Madison in the Declaration of Independence and in the later U.S. Constitution as stated above, but many of its provisions also lend understanding to what Jefferson and Madison really meant by some of the things that they said in those later documents, things of which the meanings have become obscured by both time and propaganda. We shall also see that, unequivocally, all of those documents were written by Christians and with Christian principles in mind.
George Mason, from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, May, 1776
Written for the Virginia Constitutional Convention of Wednesday, June 12th 1776
I. That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
II. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
III. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
IV. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community, but in consideration of public services; which, not being descendible, neither ought the offices of magistrate, legislator, or judge be hereditary.
V. That the legislative and executive powers of the state should be separate and distinct from the judicative; and, that the members of the two first may be restrained from oppression by feeling and participating the burthens of the people, they should, at fixed periods, be reduced to a private station, return into that body from which they were originally taken, and the vacancies be supplied by frequent, certain, and regular elections in which all, or any part of the former members, to be again eligible, or ineligible, as the laws shall direct.
VI. That elections of members to serve as representatives of the people in assembly ought to be free; and that all men, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with, and attachment to, the community have the right of suffrage and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public uses without their own consent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not, in like manner, assented, for the public good.
VII. That all power of suspending laws, or the execution of laws, by any authority without consent of the representatives of the people is injurious to their rights and ought not to be exercised.
VIII. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evidence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, nor can he be compelled to give evidence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty except by the law of the land or the judgement of his peers.
IX. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed; nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
X. That general warrants, whereby any officer or messenger may be commanded to search suspected places without evidence of a fact committed, or to seize any person or persons not named, or whose offense is not particularly described and supported by evidence, are grievous and oppressive and ought not to be granted.
XI. That in controversies respecting property and in suits between man and man, the ancient trial by jury is preferable to any other and ought to be held sacred.
XII. That the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments. [And wealthy jews!]
XIII. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.
XIV. That the people have a right to uniform government; and therefore, that no government separate from, or independent of, the government of Virginia, ought to be erected or established within the limits thereof.
XV. That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.
XVI. [Here George Mason defines the very word, religion] That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other. [Let me note that Atheism and Judaism and Mohammedanism were obviously excluded! Washington, Jefferson, and Madison must have approved, even if these provisions were not explicitly included in later documents. Upon honest examination one should learn that those things were left out of the Constitution, because they were left to the States!]
Here I will depart from George Mason, and move onto George Washington. I will not go into details about his life, for due to his fame they should not really be necessary here. I will only note that like Mason and Hancock, and Adams, he was yet another wealthy man, who sacrificed his wealth and risked all on behalf of his nation, rather than remain safe and fatten himself on his riches.
From the second paragraph of George Washington's first inaugural address, given in the City of New York on Thursday, April 30th, 1789:
Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect [a message straight from Paul of Tarsus], that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted cannot be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with a humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.
In the third paragraph of this same address Washington made the remark that “the foundation of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens and command the respect of the world. I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my country can inspire, since there is no truth more thoroughly established than that there exists in the economy and course of nature an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness; between duty and advantage; between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity; since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained; and since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered, perhaps, as deeply, as finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.” It is hereby fully evident, that we have lost our freedoms only because we have forgotten our senses of duty, virtue, and morality.
And now from the last paragraph of his address:
Having thus imparted to you my sentiments as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign Parent of the Human Race in humble supplication that, since He has been pleased to favor the American people with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparalleled unanimity on a form of government for the security of their union and the advancement of their happiness, so His divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.
In his second State of the Union address, given in Philadelphia on December 8th, 1790, George Washington requested legislation providing for Consuls in foreign lands in order to protect American commercial interests. Here is what he said:
“The patronage of our commerce, of our merchants and sea men, has called for the appointment of consuls in foreign countries. It seems expedient to regulate by law the exercise of that jurisdiction and those functions which are permitted them, either by express convention or by a friendly indulgence, in the places of their residence. The consular convention, too, with His Most Christian Majesty has stipulated in certain cases the aid of the national authority to his consuls established here. Some legislative provision is requisite to carry these stipulations into full effect.”
We have just witnessed George Washington call the King of England – a king whom he defeated and gained independence from - “His Most Christian Majesty”. Don't let the jew lie to you, Washington was not being patronizing. This is a compliment and an offer of respect of the highest kind by Washington to the King. It is made in an official government document. Not so oddly, earlier in the same speech he referred to the King of Spain as “his Catholic majesty”, perhaps thereby recognizing a difference between Christians and Catholics.
Washington gave the first and last paragraphs of his eighth and last State of the Union address thus:
In recurring to the internal situation of our country since I had last the pleasure to address you, I find ample reason for a renewed expression of that gratitude to the Ruler of the Universe which a continued series of prosperity has so often and so justly called forth. [I missed this paragraph in the audio presentation, attempting to read the following paragraph twice, for which I apologize! - WRF]
The situation in which I now stand for the last time, in the midst of the representatives of the people of the United States, naturally recalls the period when the administration of the present form of government commenced, and I cannot omit the occasion to congratulate you and my country on the success of the experiment, nor to repeat my fervent supplications to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Sovereign Arbiter of Nations that His providential care may still be extended to the United States, that the virtue and happiness of the people may be preserved, and that the Government which they have instituted for the protection of their liberties may be perpetual.
Today, in our sin, this newfangled government of the godless has become the primary vehicle for the destruction of our liberties. For us, those who profess the Truth, the only way out of this predicament is instructed us in 2 Chronicles 7:14: "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." Our challenge, is how to convince our brethren of this very need, when they have been led to believe that what was once sin is now righteousness, and that what was righteous, is now sin.