This week's re-blog is going to lead up to a blog post that I have not even started yet regarding why I vote.
This post was originally posted on November 24, 2013.
This post was originally posted on November 24, 2013.
The War OF Independence: Loyalists betrayed and the first Mennonite Split
This week I am deviating from my main topic of why I left the Mennonites. Today's post does speak of the Mennonites at the end, but only in an unbiased retelling of what happened during the revolution.
It is generally assumed by those who have not studied history or who have had a biased instructor that the American War of Independence was started by the colonists. I contend that this is not the case at all!
Growing up I was taught that the people who founded this nation were after independence from the very beginning. I have learned recently that this was not the case!
I was stunned recently to discover that the leaders of the "rebellion" appealed to the King throughout the beginning of the war. In fact, they actually told him that if he would listen to them and repeal his unconstitutional (British Constitution) tax laws and stop antagonizing the people with a standing army (also unconstitutional according the British Constitution) that they would WELCOME the rule of King.
Most folks assume that it was the Continental Congress who first declared we were no longer British freemen. This is not true! Take a look at the following document. I have only quoted the last part of the Olive Branch Petition. To see the rest you need to click this link. http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/olive.html
The following is the response from the King, who incidentally refused to even read the Olive Branch Petition when Richard Penn, Lieutenant Governor of PA, tried to present it to him. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/proclaims.htm
In effect, the King proclaimed that anyone who disagreed with him was in rebellion. The king basically declared war on anyone who dared to appeal to him to follow the British Constitution! In other words, the king declared them to no longer be part of his kingdom and that they should be killed. It should be noted that a majority of the Colonists believed that the taxes and standing armies were illegal! Guess what, Even the Loyalists believed he was wrong!
The following passages are taken from "Unnatural Rebellion, Loyalists in New York City During the Revolution," by Ruma Chopra.
So, what happened as a result? Since these "loyalists" were peaceful, they were ignored. The British had done exactly what the "rebels" said they would do. The "rebels" had seen the same tactics used in New England. The book goes into more detail about how the disenfranchised loyalists broke into two factions. One was a militant faction, and the other just wanted peace and harmony. Both groups were disgusted later when they found out that the British Army was not even interested their offers to help in the effort to reclaim the colonies, and more importantly, to free their friends and families trapped behind the rebel lines. These loyalists finally figured out that they were just cogs in a wheel and that as individuals they did not matter to the British Government.
In 1778 the British government finally decided to negotiate with the "rebels." They went so far as to repeal many of the offensive taxes. The colonists were like "Wait a second now! You declared us to be traitors, now you want to negotiate with us since you are losing? No way! Scram!" "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
In 1782 the loyalists plead with the British to not leave them at the mercy of the "rebels" by withdrawing. They actually asked the King to agree to the "rebels" demands. Unfortunately, they had forgotten what the "rebels" had done in 1778 when they rejected the late overtures from a king trying to trick a new nation out of existence [page 209]. By doing so, I believed they sealed their fate. They had unwittingly declared themselves, and their region, to be on the side of the "traitors."
Now, as for how the Anabaptists, and more specifically the Mennonites, fared during the revolition. I would encourage you to read this article. http://www.anabaptists.org/history/anabaptists-during-revolutionary-war.html. Pay attention to these passages.
Now isn't that interesting. The first split among Mennonites in the Americas was because some were willing to pay the tax of the new Caesar and the others were still of the belief they should pay the taxes to the old Caesar, King George, who no longer controlled the area. In other words, the split was over conservative vs. liberal national politics.
This week I am deviating from my main topic of why I left the Mennonites. Today's post does speak of the Mennonites at the end, but only in an unbiased retelling of what happened during the revolution.
It is generally assumed by those who have not studied history or who have had a biased instructor that the American War of Independence was started by the colonists. I contend that this is not the case at all!
Growing up I was taught that the people who founded this nation were after independence from the very beginning. I have learned recently that this was not the case!
I was stunned recently to discover that the leaders of the "rebellion" appealed to the King throughout the beginning of the war. In fact, they actually told him that if he would listen to them and repeal his unconstitutional (British Constitution) tax laws and stop antagonizing the people with a standing army (also unconstitutional according the British Constitution) that they would WELCOME the rule of King.
Most folks assume that it was the Continental Congress who first declared we were no longer British freemen. This is not true! Take a look at the following document. I have only quoted the last part of the Olive Branch Petition. To see the rest you need to click this link. http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/olive.html
- The Olive Branch Petition
- IN CONGRESS IN PHILADELPHIA
- October 26, 1774 --------------------------
- Permit us, then, most gracious sovereign, in the name of all your faithful people in America, with the utmost humility, to implore you, for the honor of Almighty God, whose pure religion our enemies are undermining; for your glory, which can be advanced only by rendering your subjects happy, and keeping them united; for the interests of your family, depending on an adherence to the principles that enthroned it; for the safety and welfare of your kingdoms and dominions, threatened with almost unavoidable dangers and distresses, that your majesty, as the loving father of your whole people, connected by the same bonds of law, loyalty, faith, and blood though dwelling in various countries, will not suffer the transcendent relation formed by these ties to be further violated, in uncertain expectation of effects that, if attained, never can compensate for the calamities through which they must be gained.
- We, therefore, most earnestly beseech your majesty that your royal authority and interposition may be used for our relief, and that a gracious answer may be given to this petition.
- That your majesty may enjoy every felicity through a long and glorious reign, over loyal and happy subjects, and that your descendants may inherit your prosperity and dominions till time shall be no more, is, and always will be, our sincere and fervent prayer.
- By order of the Congress,
- Henry Middleton, President.
The following is the response from the King, who incidentally refused to even read the Olive Branch Petition when Richard Penn, Lieutenant Governor of PA, tried to present it to him. http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/revolution/proclaims.htm
- King George III Proclaims the Colonies to be in Open RebellionAugust 23, 1775
- Whereas many of our subjects in divers parts of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, misled by dangerous and ill designing men, and forgetting the allegiance which they owe to the power that has protected and supported them; after various disorderly acts committed in disturbance of the publick peace, to the obstruction of lawful commerce, and to the oppression of our loyal subjects carrying on the same; have at length proceeded to open and avowed rebellion, by arraying themselves in a hostile manner, to withstand the execution of the law, and traitorously preparing, ordering and levying war against us: And whereas, there is reason to apprehend that such rebellion hath been much promoted and encouraged by the traitorous correspondence, counsels and comfort of divers wicked and desperate persons within this realm: To the end therefore, that none of our subjects may neglect or violate their duty through ignorance thereof, or through any doubt of the protection which the law will afford to their loyalty and zeal, we have thought fit, by and with the advice of our Privy Council, to issue our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring, that not only all our Officers, civil and military, are obliged to exert their utmost endeavours to suppress such rebellion, and to bring the traitors to justice, but that all our subjects of this Realm, and the dominions thereunto belonging, are bound by law to be aiding and assisting in the suppression of such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous conspiracies and attempts against us, our crown and dignity; and we do accordingly strictly charge and command all our Officers, as well civil as military, and all others our obedient and loyal subjects, to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress such rebellion, and to disclose and make known all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which they shall know to be against us, our crown and dignity; and for that purpose, that they transmit to one of our principal Secretaries of State, or other proper officer, due and full information of all persons who shall be found carrying on correspondence with, or in any manner or degree aiding or abetting the persons now in open arms and rebellion against our Government, within any of our Colonies and Plantations in North America, in order to bring to condign punishment the authors, perpetrators, and abetters of such traitorous designs. Given at our Court at St. James's the twenty-third day of August, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-five, in the fifteenth year of our reign.
- GOD save the KING.
In effect, the King proclaimed that anyone who disagreed with him was in rebellion. The king basically declared war on anyone who dared to appeal to him to follow the British Constitution! In other words, the king declared them to no longer be part of his kingdom and that they should be killed. It should be noted that a majority of the Colonists believed that the taxes and standing armies were illegal! Guess what, Even the Loyalists believed he was wrong!
The following passages are taken from "Unnatural Rebellion, Loyalists in New York City During the Revolution," by Ruma Chopra.
- The rebellion had interrupted legal procedures and civil institutions the leading New Yorker's cherished. [page 60]
- ----------------
- When the British entered the city New Yorkers anticipated the immediate revival of the organs of civil administration. Having endured rebel occupation, they hoped to use the pprotection of British troops to reestablish constitutional government. They saw the restoration of civil rule in New York City as a necessary step to winnning the hearts and minds of the larger colonial populace. [page 60]
- ---------------
- Instead, on 9/16/1776, one day after British possession, General Howe appointed a military commandant who replaced the legislative functions of the municipal Government.[page 61]
- ---------------
- Constitutional thinking was embedded in the colonists' worldview. Like other colonists, New Yorkers believed that legal institutions such as the jury protected them from arbitrary and unlawful government. They regarded the jury as part of the constitution and common-law tradition inherited from the Magna Carta (1215), the Petition of Right (1628), and the Bill of Rights (1689). In the fall of 1776 they found themselves confronting a situation that defied their fundamental expectations of British government. A military rule that suspended civil authority and offered no civil redress confounded loyalist expectations.
- Loyalist leaders worried that military rule reinforced rebel accusations of British despotism and boosted fears about the empire's illiberal intentions toward the colonies. Stedfastly dedicated to the reconciliation and peace, these gentlemen promoted the restoration of civil governance to reinforce the natural linkage of colonial rights with loyalty to the Crown. They believed the revival of civil law in New York City was fundamental to the larger cause of the colonies' reunion with the empire.
- -----------------
- A month after the British assumed governance of New York City, loyalist elites assembled their constituents to prepare a petition that requested restoration of civil rule in the city. The gathering of the loyalists to present the petition was not a spontaneous event. [page 65]
- ----------------
- On 9/21/1776, 948 loyalists gathered in New York City to deliver and decent and respectful address to the Howes, "the King's Commissioners for restoring Peace to his Majesty's Colonies in North America. [page 65]
So, what happened as a result? Since these "loyalists" were peaceful, they were ignored. The British had done exactly what the "rebels" said they would do. The "rebels" had seen the same tactics used in New England. The book goes into more detail about how the disenfranchised loyalists broke into two factions. One was a militant faction, and the other just wanted peace and harmony. Both groups were disgusted later when they found out that the British Army was not even interested their offers to help in the effort to reclaim the colonies, and more importantly, to free their friends and families trapped behind the rebel lines. These loyalists finally figured out that they were just cogs in a wheel and that as individuals they did not matter to the British Government.
In 1778 the British government finally decided to negotiate with the "rebels." They went so far as to repeal many of the offensive taxes. The colonists were like "Wait a second now! You declared us to be traitors, now you want to negotiate with us since you are losing? No way! Scram!" "Ain't nobody got time for that!"
In 1782 the loyalists plead with the British to not leave them at the mercy of the "rebels" by withdrawing. They actually asked the King to agree to the "rebels" demands. Unfortunately, they had forgotten what the "rebels" had done in 1778 when they rejected the late overtures from a king trying to trick a new nation out of existence [page 209]. By doing so, I believed they sealed their fate. They had unwittingly declared themselves, and their region, to be on the side of the "traitors."
Now, as for how the Anabaptists, and more specifically the Mennonites, fared during the revolition. I would encourage you to read this article. http://www.anabaptists.org/history/anabaptists-during-revolutionary-war.html. Pay attention to these passages.
- Independence created another problem for the nonresistant Christians. Was King George III or was the Continental Congress the Caesar they were to obey? Many of them had promised obedience to the king when they came to America. Breaking their word was seen as a serious sin. Also, the king had protected their liberties. Now the patriots were taking them away.
- Christian Funk and the War Tax. Still the issue of war taxes troubled the nonresistant Christians. Quakers stood firmly against paying them. The Mennonite bishops also told their people not to pay the tax. But after reading Pennsylvania's new constitution, which promised religious freedom, one bishop, Christian Funk of Franconia, thought Mennonites could pay it. Bishop Andrew Ziegler told Funk, "I'd as soon go to war as pay the tax." After many attempts urging Funk to change his mind, his fellow bishops ordered him to step down from his office. Funk refused to accept their decision. He and a small band of followers formed a separate Mennonite group. It was the first split among the Mennonites in America.
Now isn't that interesting. The first split among Mennonites in the Americas was because some were willing to pay the tax of the new Caesar and the others were still of the belief they should pay the taxes to the old Caesar, King George, who no longer controlled the area. In other words, the split was over conservative vs. liberal national politics.
Comments from old blog
Thread 1
Polly Jetix:
Fascinating!
The root problem was the same problem that permeates many authoritarian homes (and churches). When the one at the top is not a servant, but a taskmaster, then those under him/her find it hard to grow into functioning adults. Watching one's children transition from childhood to adulthood becomes a struggle for control, instead of a celebration of growth and loving guidance.
The foundational problem that laid the groundwork for the War for Independence was disrespect. Most people automatically think children disrespect parents, and this is the root issue. But I beg to differ. Children absorb the mindset of their parents. When parents disrespect a child, that child only knows how to relate to others the same way. Most authoritarian parents do not tolerate rudeness, backtalk, cut-downs, and abuse from their children. Yet, they often engage in these kinds of behaviors toward their children, thinking this is simply being a strong parent. But when we disrespect a child's soul, we only lay the foundation for a lifetime of reaping disrespect.
Of course, parents do need to require respect from their children--not only toward the parents, but also between siblings. And the only way anything is really learned, is through modeling. Humility is the only basis for effective parenting.
If King George III had been humble enough to listen to his "children" across the ocean, instead of demanding unthinking obedience, think how the history books would read now.
Manfred Nissley:
Very true! My preacher actually brought out those points this morning as he taught the second part of Matthew 19.
Thread two
Lester Bauman:
Have you read John L Ruth's book Twas Seeding Time?
Manfred Nissley:
No, I have never heard of it. I will do some research on it. (I still haven't gotten to it.)
Thread 1
Polly Jetix:
Fascinating!
The root problem was the same problem that permeates many authoritarian homes (and churches). When the one at the top is not a servant, but a taskmaster, then those under him/her find it hard to grow into functioning adults. Watching one's children transition from childhood to adulthood becomes a struggle for control, instead of a celebration of growth and loving guidance.
The foundational problem that laid the groundwork for the War for Independence was disrespect. Most people automatically think children disrespect parents, and this is the root issue. But I beg to differ. Children absorb the mindset of their parents. When parents disrespect a child, that child only knows how to relate to others the same way. Most authoritarian parents do not tolerate rudeness, backtalk, cut-downs, and abuse from their children. Yet, they often engage in these kinds of behaviors toward their children, thinking this is simply being a strong parent. But when we disrespect a child's soul, we only lay the foundation for a lifetime of reaping disrespect.
Of course, parents do need to require respect from their children--not only toward the parents, but also between siblings. And the only way anything is really learned, is through modeling. Humility is the only basis for effective parenting.
If King George III had been humble enough to listen to his "children" across the ocean, instead of demanding unthinking obedience, think how the history books would read now.
Manfred Nissley:
Very true! My preacher actually brought out those points this morning as he taught the second part of Matthew 19.
Thread two
Lester Bauman:
Have you read John L Ruth's book Twas Seeding Time?
Manfred Nissley:
No, I have never heard of it. I will do some research on it. (I still haven't gotten to it.)
I welcome any comments you might have!
RSS Feed