Monday, March 9, 2020

The Forgotten Man




Against the background of a darkening sky, all of the past Presidents of the United States gather before the White House, as if to commemorate some great event. In the left hand corner of the painting sits a man. That man, with his head bowed appears distraught and hopeless as he contemplates his future. Some of the past Presidents try to console him while looking in the direction of the modern Presidents as if to say, “What have you done?” Many of these modern Presidents, seemingly oblivious to anything other than themselves, appear to be congratulating each other on their great accomplishments. In front of the man, paper trash is blowing in the wind. Crumpled dollar bills, legislative documents, and, like a whisper—the U.S. Constitution beneath the foot of Barack Obama.

When Satan Steals Your Motherhood

Motherhood is a gift from God that Satan will gladly suck the joy out of at every opportunity. Let’s stop the Liar in his tracks.

It is there, and it creeps up like a silent killer. Maybe it is the wet underwear that you found floating in the hallway bathroom. Or the cat food that has been flung out on the floor like tiny marbles waiting to trip up a passerby. Or the loud thumping and yelling and tantruming as if we live in some sort of primal age where roaring and beating your chest were the only way to get other’s attention.And all of that madness and anger? It wasn’t the kids. It was me.  The mother. The one who left a pair of Superman undies in a bathroom we rarely use for days, fed the cat without my glasses after someone else forgot, and the loud, obnoxious, downright scary human being I can be when I have just had more than I can handle.

That’s the kind of thing that happens when you allow satan to steal your motherhood.

No, it’s not the mistakes. It’s not the forgetfulness. It is what happens on the inside that no one else sees. And he knows just how to get to you.

He admires you, you know. But only when you yell at your kids, complain about tasks that need to be done regardless of how many people are in your home. He loves it when you wish you were the mom with the skinny jeans and tall boots and shiny hair with the perfectly groomed kids at the mall play area. You look at her and think you are sub-par. Satan loves that.

Satan also loves it when you get scared because someone posted a random video online of how their four year old can read, so you freak out that YOUR four year old is more interested in roaming outdoors and  playing with bobby pins and giving them names, so you panic because books are the last thing on her mind. Satan is clapping now.

Satan also adores you when you get on the phone and ignore your kids, when you hide your true feelings and dreams and frustrations with your husband with a weak “I’m fine”, and when you feel like this fun birthday party at the park for your children isn’t “the best” compared to someone else’s insanely expensive Pinterest celebration.

Satan wants you to fail. And to feel alone. And to feel inadequate to what Someone Else has CALLED you to do.

Because I might as well have left the front door unlocked and allowed a thief to come right in my home yesterday. I mean, why not? I let satan in. After all the fussing and nagging and utter bone tired exhaustion, I crawled into bed with my three year old for a moment. Just to apologize.

“I am so sorry today was so rough”

“I didn’t think it was rough. I thought it was fun!”

“Really? Which part was fun?”

“The part where we played on the couch like we were on a boat. Where we ‘fished’ with your belt as a fishing line, and used the couch pillows for life boats”.

Tears started rolling down my cheeks.

“Please pray for me. That I can be a better Mommy”.

“Oh, I did! Earlier today. When it was sunny. Right before we played the boat game”.

Today I’m locking the door tight to whatever evil enters my heart and home.

Today I am going to remember the One who GIVES LIFE and knows I am a mess and LOVES ME ANYWAY.

I washed the undies. The cat took care of the food. That four year old is now six and can read like a champ. But she still names random things. And it’s cool that my hair is “shiny” because it is unwashed and I can’t wear tall boots because they make me taller than the guy that loves me to the moon and back.

Roll those cars down a ramp, read one more princess story, forget how “busy” you think you are and what the world thinks you should accomplish in a 24 hour period and for heaven’s sake, LOG OFF OF PINTEREST.

Take your kids and an old, worn blanket, reheat that coffee and hold them tight and just rest at the feet of Jesus for a moment.

Today? It is going to be okay. Take back your motherhood. It is a gift. Listen to the life-giver, NOT the liar.
The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life and have it abundantly. {John 10:10}

The Miranda Warning


The Constitution reserves many rights for those suspected of crime. One of the fears of the Framers was that the government could act however it wished by simply saying an individual was a suspected criminal. Many of the rights in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, such as habeas corpus, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, are designed to ensure that those accused of a crime are assured of those rights.

Police were able to take advantage of the fact that not everyone knows their rights by heart. In fact, it is likely that most citizens could name a few of their rights as accused criminals, but not all of them. The police’s position was that if the accused, for example, spoke about a crime without knowing that they did not need to, that it was the person’s fault for not invoking that right, even if they did not know, or did not remember, that they had that right.

This was the crux of the issue in Miranda v Arizona. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was accused of kidnapping and raping an 18-year-old, mildly retarded woman. He was brought in for questioning, and confessed to the crime. He was not told that he did not have to speak or that he could have a lawyer present. At trial, Miranda’s lawyer tried to get the confession thrown out, but the motion was denied. In 1966, the case came in front of the Supreme Court. The Court ruled that the statements made to the police could not be used as evidence, since Miranda had not been advised of his rights.

Since then, before any pertinent questioning of a suspect is done, the police have been required to recite the Miranda warning. The statement, reproduced below, exists in several forms, but all have the key elements: the right to remain silent and the right to an attorney. These are also often referred to as the “Miranda rights.” When you have been read your rights, you are said to have been “Mirandized.”

Note that one need not be Mirandized to be arrested. There is a difference between being arrested and being questioned. Also, basic questions, such as name, address, and Social Security number do not need to be covered by a Miranda warning. The police also need not Mirandize someone who is not a suspect in a crime.

As for Ernesto Miranda, his conviction was thrown out, though he did not become a free man. The police had other evidence that was independent of the confession, and when Miranda was tried a second time, he was convicted again. After release from prison, Miranda was killed in a barroom brawl in 1976.

The following is a minimal Miranda warning, as outlined in the Miranda v Arizona case.

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.

The following is a much more verbose Miranda warning, designed to cover all bases that a detainee might encounter while in police custody. A detainee may be asked to sign a statement acknowledging the following.

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions. Do you understand?

Anything you do say may be used against you in a court of law. Do you understand?

You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future. Do you understand?

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. Do you understand?

If you decide to answer questions now without an attorney present you will still have the right to stop answering at any time until you talk to an attorney. Do you understand?

Knowing and understanding your rights as I have explained them to you, are you willing to answer my questions without an attorney present?

Native Americans and the American Revolution


by Collin G. Calloway

The Declaration of Independence accused King George III of unleashing “merciless Indian Savages” against innocent men, women, and children. The image of ferocious warriors propelled into action by a tyrannical monarch fixed in memory and imagination the Indians’ role in the Revolution and justified their subsequent treatment. But many Indian nations tried to stay out of the conflict, some sided with the Americans, and those who fought with the British were not the king’s pawns: they allied with the Crown as the best hope of protecting their homelands from the encroachments of American colonists and land speculators. The British government had afforded Indian lands a measure of protection by the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which had attempted to restrict colonial expansion beyond the Appalachian Mountains, and had alienated many American colonists. Indians knew that the Revolution was a contest for Indian land as well as for liberty.Some Indian tribes went to war early. Cherokee warriors, frustrated by recurrent land losses, defied the authority of older chiefs and attacked frontier settlements, only to be soundly defeated by expeditions from Virginia, Georgia, and the Carolinas. On the other hand, Indians from the mission town at Stockbridge in western Massachusetts, like most New England Indians, supported their colonial neighbors. They volunteered as minutemen even before the outbreak of the fighting, joined Washington’s army at the siege of Boston, and served in New York, New Jersey, and Canada.

The Revolution split the Iroquois Confederacy. Mohawks led by Joseph Brant adhered to their long-standing allegiance to the British, and eventually most Cayugas, Onondagas, and Senecas joined them. But Oneidas and Tuscaroras sided with the Americans, owing in large measure to the efforts of their Presbyterian missionary Samuel Kirkland. The Revolution became a civil war for the Iroquois, as Oneidas clashed with Senecas at the Battle of Oriskany in 1777. Iroquois sufferings were compounded in 1779 when General John Sullivan led an American army through their country, burning forty towns and destroying crops.

In the Ohio country Guyashuta of the Senecas, Cornstalk of the Shawnees, and White Eyes of the Delawares worked hard to steer a neutral course in the early years of the war. At the Treaty of Fort Pitt in 1778, Delawares and Americans pledged “perpetual peace and friendship.” But after Americans killed White Eyes and Cornstalk, and slaughtered noncombatant Moravian Delawares at the mission town of Gnadenhutten, Ohio Indians made common cause with the British. They won victories in the West long after Cornwallis had surrendered in the East, and continued to resist American expansion for a dozen years after the Revolution.

In 1783, under the terms of the Peace of Paris, without regard to its Indian allies, Britain handed over to the new United States all its territory east of the Mississippi, south of the Great Lakes, and north of Florida. The United States proceeded to expand westward, acquiring Indian lands by treaty and by force. Stockbridges and Oneidas who had supported the Americans lost lands as well as Senecas and Shawnees who had fought against them.

Indians fought in the Revolution for Indian liberties and Indian homelands, not for the British empire. But the image of Indian participation presented in the Declaration of Independence prevailed: most Americans believed that Indians had backed monarchy and tyranny. A nation conceived in liberty need feel no remorse about dispossessing and expelling those who had fought against its birth.

To learn more:

Colin G. Calloway, The American Revolution in Indian Country: Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

Barbara Graymont, The Iroquois in the American Revolution (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1972).

Woody Holton, Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia (Chapel Hill : Published for the Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture by the University of North Carolina Press, 1999).

Richard White, The Middle Ground : Indians, Empires, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

Sunday, March 8, 2020

28 Great Ideas...


…That Changed the World
    1. The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is natural law.
    2. A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong.
    3. The most promising method of securing a virtuous and morally stable people is to elect virtuous leaders.
    4. Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained.
    5. All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible.
    6. All men are created equal.
    7. The proper role of government is to protect equal rights, not equal things.
    8. Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.
    9. To protect man’s rights, God has revealed certain principles of divine law.
    10. The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.
    11. The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrannical.
    12. The United States of America shall be a republic.
    13. A constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people from the human frailties of their rulers.
    14. Life and liberty are secure only so long as the right to property is secure.
    15. The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.
    16. The government should be separated into three branches: legislative, executive, and judicial.
    17. A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power.
    18. The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of government are set forth in a written constitution.
    19. Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained by the people.
    20. Efficiency and dispatch require government to operate according to the will of the majority, but constitutional provisions must be made to protect the rights of the minority.
    21. Strong local self-government is the keystone to preserving human freedom.
    22. A free people should be governed by law and not the whims of men.
    23. A free society cannot survive as a republic without a broad program of general education.
    24. A free people will not survive unless they stay strong.
    25. Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations: entangling alliances with none.
    26. The core unit which determines the strength of any society is the family; therefore, the government should foster and protect its integrity.
    27. The burden of debt is as destructive to freedom as subjugation by conquest.
    28. The United States has a manifest destiny to be an example to the entire human race.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Extracted from:
The 5000 Year Leap: A miracle That Changed the World
by W. Cleon Skousen, LL.B, J.D.
published by National Center for Constitutional Studies (www.nccs.net)
c. 1981, 1991, 2006
ISBN-13: 978-0-88080-148-5
ISBN-10: 0-88080-148-4
337 pages.

Also published as:

The Five Thousand Year Leap: 30 Year Anniversary Edition with Glenn Beck Foreword
by W. Cleon Skousen, LL.B, J.D.
published by Ensign Publishing
c. 1981, 2007
ISBN-13: 978-0-98155-966-7
ISBN-10: 0-98155-966-2
294 pages.
One of these books should be read in order to fully comprehend the fundamental principles espoused above. Both are available from local booksellers and from www.amazon.com .

Dear Grampa...





I thought of you today, but that is nothing new,

I thought about you yesterday, and the day before that too.
I think of you in silence, I often speak your name,
All I have are memories, and a picture in a frame.
Your memory is a keepsake, from which I’ll never part.
God has you in his arms, I have you in my heart…
Love you Grampa, always have, always will!

"One Nation Under God"



This simple phrase, added to the pledge of allegiance over 50 years ago has been the source of unbelievable debate and heated controversy. Likewise, the phrase ‘In God We Trust’ on our currency has been targeted and continues to be attacked as improper and politically incorrect. Lawsuits have been filed and legal minds employed to ascertain whether such statements violate the concept of ‘separation of church and state’.

As this debate continues, some so called experts have implied or concluded that our Founding Fathers and Patriots were not religious. These secular champions, in an effort to further their own causes, have even painted these great men and women from our history as being devoid of religious passions or even a belief in God. This is a part of their strategy to remove any discussion of God from the public forum.

These men and women were passionately religious and saw the hand of God all around them. To God they gave Thanks for His Hand in the founding of this great nation. To Him, according to their own testimony they turned for wisdom and strength when life and liberty hung in the balance. Certainly the debate on separation of church and state will continue. But no one can dispute how our Founding Fathers and Patriots felt about God. The record is clear!

‘One Nation Under God’ is Jon McNaughton’s witness and reminder that those who went before us knew from whence their blessings came!

What is the Black Robe Regiment?


What is the Black Robe Regiment?

A Brief History by David Barton


The Black Robe Regiment was the name that the British placed on the courageous and patriotic American clergy during the Founding Era (a backhanded reference to the black robes they wore). [1] Significantly, the British blamed the Black Regiment for American Independence, [2] and rightfully so, for modern historians have documented that:

There is not a right asserted in the Declaration of Independence which had not been discussed by the New England clergy before 1763. [3]

It is strange to today’s generation to think that the rights listed in the Declaration of Independence were nothing more than a listing of sermon topics that had been preached from the pulpit in the two decades leading up to the American Revolution, but such was the case.

But it was not just the British who saw the American pulpit as largely responsible for American independence and government, our own leaders agreed. For example, John Adams rejoiced that “the pulpits have thundered” [4] and specifically identified several ministers as being among the “characters the most conspicuous, the most ardent, and influential” in the “awakening and a revival of American principles and feelings” that led to American independence. [5]

Across subsequent generations, the great and positive influence of the Revolutionary clergy was faithfully reported. For example:

As a body of men, the clergy were pre-eminent in their attachment to liberty. The pulpits of the land rang with the notes of freedom. [6] The American Quarterly Register [MAGAZINE], 1833

If Christian ministers had not preached and prayed, there might have been no revolution as yet – or had it broken out, it might have been crushed. [7] Bibliotheca Sacra [BRITISH PERIODICAL], 1856

The ministers of the Revolution were, like their Puritan predecessors, bold and fearless in the cause of their country. No class of men contributed more to carry forward the Revolution and to achieve our independence than did the ministers. . . . [B]y their prayers, patriotic sermons, and services [they] rendered the highest assistance to the civil government, the army, and the country. [8] B. F. Morris, HISTORIAN, 1864

The Constitutional Convention and the written Constitution were the children of the pulpit. [9] Alice Baldwin, HISTORIAN, 1918

Had ministers been the only spokesman of the rebellion – had Jefferson, the Adamses, and [James] Otis never appeared in print – the political thought of the Revolution would have followed almost exactly the same line. . . . In the sermons of the patriot ministers . . . we find expressed every possibly refinement of the reigning political faith. [10] Clinton Rossiter, HISTORIAN, 1953

The American clergy were faithful exponents of the fullness of God’s Word, applying its principles to every aspect of life, thus shaping America’s institutes and culture. They were also at the forefront of proclaiming liberty, resisting tyranny, and opposing any encroachments on God-given rights and freedoms. In 1898, Methodist bishop and church historian Charles Galloway rightly observed of these ministers:

Mighty men they were, of iron nerve and strong hand and unblanched cheek and heart of flame. God needed not reeds shaken by the wind, not men clothed in soft raiment [Matthew 11:7-8], but heroes of hardihood and lofty courage. . . . And such were the sons of the mighty who responded to the Divine call. [11]

But the ministers during the Revolutionary period were not necessarily unique; they were simply continuing what ministers had been doing to shape American government and culture in the century and a half preceding the Revolution.

For example, the early settlers who arrived in Virginia beginning in 1606 included ministers such as the Revs. Robert Hunt, Richard Burke, William Mease, Alexander Whitaker, William Wickham, and others. In 1619 they helped form America’s first representative government: the Virginia House of Burgesses, with its members elected from among the people. [12] That legislature met in the Jamestown church and was opened with prayer by the Rev. Mr. Bucke; the elected legislators then sat in the church choir loft to conduct legislative business. [13] As Bishop Galloway later observed:

[T]he first movement toward democracy in America was inaugurated in the house of God and with the blessing of the minister of God. [14]

In 1620, the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts to establish their colony. Their pastor, John Robinson, charged them to elect civil leaders who would not only seek the “common good” but who would also eliminate special privileges and status between governors and the governed [15] – a radical departure from the practice in the rest of the world at that time. The Pilgrims eagerly took that message to heart, organizing a representative government and holding annual elections. [16] By 1636, they had also enacted a citizens’ Bill of Rights – America’s first. [17]

In 1630, the Puritans arrived and founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and under the leadership of their ministers, they, too, established representative government with annual elections. [18] By 1641, they also had established a Bill of Rights (the “Body of Liberties”) [19] – a document of individual rights drafted by the Rev. Nathaniel Ward. [20]

In 1636, the Rev. Roger Williams established the Rhode Island Colony and its representative form of government, [21] explaining that “[t]he sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power lies in the people.” [22]

The same year, the Rev. Thomas Hooker (along with the Revs. Samuel Stone, John Davenport, and Theophilus Eaton) founded Connecticut. [23] They not only established an elective form of government [24] but in a 1638 sermon based on Deuteronomy 1:13 and Exodus 18:21, the Rev. Hooker explained the three Biblical principles that had guided the plan of government in Connecticut:

I. [T]he choice of public magistrates belongs unto the people by God’s own allowance.
II. The privilege of election . . . belongs to the people . . .
III. They who have power to appoint officers and magistrates [i.e., the people], it is in their power also to set the bounds and limitations of the power and place. [25]

From the Rev. Hooker’s teachings and leadership sprang the “Fundamental Orders of Connecticut” – America’s first written constitution (and the direct antecedent of the federal Constitution). [26] But while Connecticut produced America’s first written constitution, it definitely had not produced America’s first written document of governance, for such written documents had been the norm for every colony founded by Bible-minded Christians. After all, this was the Scriptural model: God had given Moses a fixed written law to govern that nation – a pattern that recurred throughout the Scriptures (c.f., Deuteronomy 17:18-20, 31:24, II Chronicles 34:15-21, etc.). As renown Cornell University professor Clinton Rossiter affirmed:

[T]he Bible gave a healthy spur to the belief in a written constitution. The Mosaic Code, too, was a higher law that men could live by – and appeal to – against the decrees and whims of ordinary men. [27] (emphasis added)

Written documents of governance placed direct limitations on government and gave citizens maximum protection against the whims of selfish leaders. This practice of providing written documents had been the practice of American ministers before the Rev. Hooker’s constitution of 1638 and continued long after.

For example, in 1676, New Jersey was chartered and then divided into two religious sub-colonies: Puritan East Jersey and Quaker West Jersey; each had representative government with annual elections. [28] The governing document for West Jersey was written by Christian minister William Penn. It declared:

We lay a foundation for after ages to understand their liberty . . . that they may not be brought in bondage but by their own consent, for we put the power in the people. [29]
Under Penn’s document . . .

Legislation was vested in a single assembly elected by all the inhabitants; the elections were to be by secret ballot; the principle of “No taxation without representation” was clearly asserted; freedom of conscience, trial by jury, and immunity from arrest without warrant were guaranteed. [30]

In 1681, Penn wrote the Frame of Government for Pennsylvania. It, too, established annual elections and provided numerous guarantees for citizen rights. [31]

There are many additional examples, but it is indisputable that ministers played a critical role in instituting and securing many of America’s most significant civil rights and freedoms. As Founding Father Noah Webster affirmed:
 
The learned clergy . . . had great influence in founding the first genuine republican governments ever formed and which, with all the faults and defects of the men and their laws, were the best republican governments on earth. At this moment, the people of this country are indebted chiefly to their institutions for the rights and privileges which are enjoyed. [32]

Daniel Webster (the great “Defender of the Constitution”) agreed:

[T]o the free and universal reading of the Bible in that age men were much indebted for right views of civil liberty. [33]

Because Christian ministers established in America freedoms and opportunities not generally available even in the mother country of Great Britain, they were also at the forefront of resisting encroachments on the civil and religious liberties that they had helped secure.

For example, when crown-appointed Governor Edmund Andros tried to seize the charters of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, revoke their representative governments, and force the establishment of the British Anglican Church upon them, opposition to Andros’ plan was led by the Revs. Samuel Willard, Increase Mather, and especially the Rev. John Wise. [34] The Rev. Wise was even imprisoned by Andros for his resistance but he remained an unflinching voice for freedom, penning in 1710 and 1717 two works forcefully asserting that democracy was God’s ordained government in both Church and State, [35] thus causing historians to title him “The Founder of American Democracy.” [36]

And when Governor Berkley refused to recognize Virginia’s self-government, Quaker minister William Edmundson and the Rev. Thomas Harrison led the opposition. [37] When Governor Thomas Hutchinson ignored the elected Massachusetts legislature, the Rev. Dr. Samuel Cooper led the opposition. [38] And a similar pattern was followed when Governor William Burnet dissolved the New Hampshire legislature, Governor Botetourt disbanded the Virginia House of Burgesses, Governor James Wright disbanded the Georgia Assembly, etc.

And because American preachers consistently opposed encroachments on civil and religious liberties, when the British imposed on Americans the 1765 Stamp Act (an early harbinger of the rupture between the two nations soon to follow), at the vanguard of the opposition to that act were the Revs. Andrew Eliot, Charles Chauncey, Samuel Cooper, Jonathan Mayhew, and George Whitefield [39]
(Whitefield even accompanied Benjamin Franklin to Parliament to protest the Act and assert colonial rights). [40] In fact, one of the reasons that American resistance to the Stamp Act became so widespread was because the “clergy fanned the fire of resistance to the Stamp Act into a strong flame.” [41]

Five years later in 1770 when the British opened fire on their own citizens in the famous “Boston Massacre,” ministers again stepped to the forefront, boldly denouncing that abuse of power. A number of sermons were preached on the subject, including by the Revs. John Lathrop, Charles Chauncey, and Samuel Cooke; [42] the Massachusetts House of Representatives even ordered that Rev. Cooke’s sermon be printed and distributed. [43]

As tensions with the British continued to grow, ministers such as the Rev. George Whitefield [44] and the Rev. Timothy Dwight [45] became some of the earliest leaders to advocate America’s separation from Great Britain.

There are many additional examples, but the historical records respecting the leadership of the clergy were so clear that in 1851, distinguished historian Benson Lossing concluded:

[T]he Puritan preachers also promulgated the doctrine of civil liberty – that the sovereign was amenable to the tribunal of public opinion and ought to conform in practice to the expressed will of the majority of the people. By degrees their pulpits became the tribunes of the common people; and . . . on all occasions, the Puritan ministers were the bold asserters of that freedom which the American Revolution established. [46] (emphasis added)

However, Christian ministers did not just teach the principles that led to independence, they also participated on the battlefield to secure that independence. One of the numerous examples is the Rev. Jonas Clark.

When Paul Revere set off on his famous ride, it was to the home of the Rev. Clark in Lexington that he rode. Patriot leaders John Hancock and Samuel Adams were lodging (as they often did) with the Rev. Clark. After learning of the approaching British forces, Hancock and Adams turned to Pastor Clark and inquired of him whether the people were ready to fight. Clark unhesitatingly replied, “I have trained them for this very hour!” [47] When the original alarm sounded in Lexington to warn of the oncoming British menace, citizens gathered at the town green, and according to early historian Joel Headley:

There they found their pastor the [Rev. Clark] who had arrived before them. The roll was called and a hundred and fifty answered to their names . . . . The church, the pastor, and his congregation thus standing together in the dim light [awaiting the Redcoats], while the stars looked tranquilly down from the sky above them. [48]

The British did not appear at that first alarm, and the people returned home. At the subsequent alarm, they reassembled, and once the sound of the battle subsided, some eighteen Americans lay on Lexington Green; seven were dead – all from the Rev. Clark’s church. [49] Headley therefore concluded, “The teachings of the pulpit of Lexington caused the first blow to be struck for American Independence,” [50] and historian James Adams added that “the patriotic preaching of the Reverend Jonas Clark primed those guns.” [51]

When the British troops left Lexington, they fought at Concord Bridge and then headed back to Boston, encountering increasing American resistance on their return. Significantly, many who awaited the British along the road were local pastors (such as the Rev. Phillips Payson [52] and the Rev. Benjamin Balch [53]) who had heard of the unprovoked British attack on the Americans, taken up their own arms, and then rallied their congregations to meet the returning British. As word of the attack spread wider, pastors from other areas also responded.

For example, when word reached Vermont, the Rev. David Avery promptly gathered twenty men and marched toward Boston, recruiting additional troops along the way, [54] and the Rev. Stephen Farrar of New Hampshire led 97 of his parishioners to Boston. [55] The ranks of resistance to the British swelled through the efforts of Christian ministers who “were far more effective than army recruiters in rounding up citizen-soldiers.” [56]

Weeks later when the Americans fought the British at Bunker Hill, American ministers again delved headlong into the fray. For example, when the Rev. David Grosvenor heard that the battle had commenced, he left from his pulpit – rifle in hand – and promptly marched to the scene of action, [57] as did the Rev. Jonathan French. [58]

This pattern was common through the Revolution – as when the Rev. Thomas Reed marched to the defense of Philadelphia against British General Howe; [59] the Rev. John Steele led American forces in attacking the British; [60] the Rev. Isaac Lewis helped lead the resistance to the British landing at Norwalk, Connecticut; [61] the Rev. Joseph Willard raised two full companies and then marched with them to battle; [62] the Rev. James Latta, when many of his parishioners were drafted, joined with them as a common soldier; [63] and the Rev. William Graham joined the military as a rifleman in order to encourage others in his parish to do the same [64]. Furthermore:

Of Rev. John Craighead it is said that “he fought and preached alternately.” Rev. Dr. Cooper was captain of a military company. Rev. John Blair Smith, president of Hampden-Sidney College, was captain of a company that rallied to support the retreating Americans after the battle of Cowpens. Rev. James Hall commanded a company that armed against Cornwallis. Rev. William Graham rallied his own neighbors to dispute the passage of Rockfish Gap with Tarleton and his British dragoons. [65]

There are many additional examples. No wonder the British dubbed the patriotic American clergy the “Black Regiment.” [66] But because of their strong leadership, ministers were often targeted by the British. As Headley confirms:

[T]here was a class of clergymen and chaplains in the Revolution whom the British, when they once laid hands on them, treated with the most barbarous severity. Dreading them for the influence they wielded and hating them for the obstinacy, courage, and enthusiasm they infused into the rebels, they violated all the usages of war among civilized nations in order to inflict punishment upon them. [67]
Among these was the Rev. Naphtali Daggett, President of Yale. When the British approached New Haven to enter private homes and desecrate property and belongings, Daggett offered stiff and at times almost single-handed resistance to the British invasion, standing alone on a hillside, repeatedly firing his rifle down at the hundreds of British troops below. Eventually captured, over a period of several hours the British stabbed and pricked Daggett multiple times with their bayonets. Local townspeople lobbied the British and eventually secured the release of the preacher, but Daggett never recovered from those wounds, which eventually caused his death. [68] When the Rev. James Caldwell offered similar resistance in New Jersey, the British burned his church and he and his family were murdered. [69]

The British abused, killed, or imprisoned many other clergymen, [70] who often suffered harsher treatment and more severe penalties than did ordinary imprisoned soldiers. [71] But the British targeted not just ministers but also their churches. As a result, of the nineteen church buildings in New York City, ten were destroyed by the British, [72] and most of the churches in Virginia suffered the same fate. [73] This pattern was repeated throughout many other parts of the country.

Truly, Christian ministers provided courageous leadership throughout the Revolution, and as briefly noted earlier, they had also been largely responsible for laying its intellectual foundation. To understand more of their influence, consider the Rev. John Wise.

As early as 1687, the Rev. Wise was already teaching that “taxation without representation is tyranny,” [74] the “consent of the governed” was the foundation of government, [75] and that “every man must be acknowledged equal to every man.” [76] In 1772 with the Revolution on the horizon, two of Wise’s works were reprinted by leading patriots and the Sons of Liberty to refresh America’s understanding of the core Biblical principles of government. [77] (The first printing sold so fast that a quick second reprint was quickly issued. [78]) Significantly, many of the specific points made by Wise in that work subsequently appeared four years later in the very language of the Declaration of Independence. As historian Benjamin Morris affirmed in 1864:

[S]ome of the most glittering sentences in the immortal Declaration of Independence are almost literal quotations from this [1772 reprinted] essay of John Wise. . . . It was used as a political text-book in the great struggle for freedom. [79]

And decades later when President Calvin Coolidge delivered a 1926 speech in Philadelphia on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, he similarly acknowledged:

The thoughts [in the Declaration] can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. [80]

It was Christian ministers such as John Wise (and scores like him) who, through their writings and countless sermons (such as their Election Sermons and other sermons on the Biblical principles of government) laid the intellectual basis for American Independence.

Christian clergy largely defined America’s unique political theory and even defended it in military combat, but they were also leaders in the national legislative councils in order to help implement what they had conceived and birthed. For example, the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon was a member of the Continental Congress who served during the Revolution on the Board of War as well as on over 100 congressional committees. [81] Other ministers who served in the Continental Congress included the Revs. Joseph Montgomery, Hugh Williamson, John Zubly, and more.

Numerous ministers also served in state legislatures – such as the Rev. Jacob Green of New Jersey, who helped set aside the British government in that state and was made chairman of the committee that drafted the state’s original constitution in 1776; [82] the Rev. Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, who helped draft Pennsylvania’s 1776 constitution; [83] the Rev. Samuel Stillman, who helped draft Massachusetts’ 1780 constitution; [84] etc.

When hostilities ceased at the end of the Revolution, Christian ministers led in the movement for a federal constitution. For example, the Revs. Jeremy Belknap, Samuel Stanhope Smith, John Witherspoon, and James Manning began pointing out the defects of the Articles of Confederation, [85] and when the Constitution was finally complete and submitted to the states for ratification, nearly four dozen clergymen were elected as ratifying delegates, [86] many of whom played key roles in securing its adoption in their respective states.

Following the adoption of the new federal Constitution, ministers were highly active in celebrating its ratification. For example, of the parade in Philadelphia, signer of the Declaration Benjamin Rush happily reported:

The clergy formed a very agreeable part of the procession. They manifested by their attendance their sense of the connection between religion and good government. They. . . . marched arm in arm with each other to exemplify the Union. [87]

When the first federal Congress under the new Constitution convened, several ministers were Members, including the Revs. Frederick Augustus and John Peter Gabriel Muhlenberg, Abiel Foster, Benjamin Contee, Abraham Baldwin, and Paine Wingate.

Ministers were intimately involved in every aspect of introducing, defining, and securing America’s civil and religious liberties. A 1789 Washington, D. C., newspaper therefore proudly reported:
[O]ur truly patriotic clergy boldly and zealously stepped forth and bravely stood our distinguished sentinels to watch and warn us against approaching danger; they wisely saw that our religious and civil liberties were inseparably connected and therefore warmly excited and animated the people resolutely to oppose and repel every hostile invader. . . . [M]ay the virtue, zeal and patriotism of our clergy be ever particularly remembered. [88]

Incidentally, besides their contributions to government and civil and religious liberty, the Black Robed Regiment was also largely responsible for education in America. Ministers, understanding that only a literate people well versed in the teachings of the Bible could sustain free and enlightened government, therefore established an education system that would teach and preserve the religious principles so indispensable to the civil and religious liberties they forcefully advocated.

Consequently, in 1635 the Puritans established America’s first public school, [89] and in 1647 passed America’ first public education law (“The Old Deluder Satan Act” [90]). And Harvard University was founded through the direction of Puritan minister John Harvard; [91] Yale was founded by ten congregational ministers; [92] Princeton by Presbyterian ministers Jonathan Dickinson, John Pierson, and Ebenezer Pemberton; [93] William and Mary by Episcopal minister James Blair; [94] Dartmouth by Congregational minister Eleazar Wheelock; [95] etc.

This trend of Gospel ministers founding and leading American educational institutions continued for the next two-and-a-half centuries, and by 1860, ninety-one percent of all college presidents were ministers of the Gospel – as were more than a third of all university faculty members. [96] Of the 246 colleges founded by the close of that year, only seventeen were not affiliated with some denomination; [97] and by 1884, eighty-three percent of America’s 370 colleges still remained denominational colleges. [98] As Founding Father Noah Webster (the “Schoolmaster to America”) affirmed, “to them [the clergy] is popular education in this country more indebted than to any other class of men.” [99]

In short, history demonstrates that America’s elective governments, her educational system, and many other positive aspects of American life and culture were the product of Biblical-thinking Christian clergy and leaders. Today, however, as the influence of the clergy has waned, many of these institutions have come under unprecedented attack and many of our traditional freedoms have been significantly eroded. It is time for America’s clergy to understand and reclaim the important position of influence they have been given. As the Rev. Charles Finney – a leader of the Second Great Awakening – reminded ministers in his day:

Brethren, our preaching will bear its legitimate fruits. If immorality prevails in the land, the fault is ours in a great degree. If there is a decay of conscience, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the public press lacks moral discrimination, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the church is degenerate and worldly, the pulpit is responsible for it. If the world loses its interest in religion, the pulpit is responsible for it. If Satan rules in our halls of legislation, the pulpit is responsible for it. If our politics become so corrupt that the very foundations of our government are ready to fall away, the pulpit is responsible for it. Let us not ignore this fact, my dear brethren; but let us lay it to heart, and be thoroughly awake to our responsibility in respect to the morals of this nation. [100]

America once again needs the type of courageous ministers described by Bishop Galloway:

Mighty men they were, of iron nerve and strong hand and unblanched cheek and heart of flame. God needed not reeds shaken by the wind, not men clothed in soft raiment [Matthew 11:7-8], but heroes of hardihood and lofty courage. . . .And such were the sons of the mighty who responded to the Divine call. [101]

It is time to reinvigorate the Black Robed Regiment!
———————————————————–
[1] Boston Gazette, December 7, 1772, article by “Israelite,” and Boston Weekly Newsletter, January 11, 1776, article by Peter Oliver, British official. See also Peter Oliver, Peter Oliver’s Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion, Douglas Adair and John A. Schutz, editors (San Marino California: The Huntington Library, 1961), pp. 29, 41-45; Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 334; and Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), pp. 98, 155.
[2] Alpheus Packard, “Nationality,” Bibliotheca Sacra and American Biblical Repository (London: Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1856), Vol. XIII p.193, Article VI. See also Benjamin Franklin Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), pp. 334-335.
[3] Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), p. 170.
[4] John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. III, p. 476, “The Earl of Clarendon to William Pym,” January 20, 1766.
[5] John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1850), Vol. X, p. 284, to Hezekiah Niles, February 13, 1818. See also John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1856), Vol. X, pp. 271-272, letter to William Wirt, January 5, 1818.
[6] “History of Revivals of Religion, From the Settlement of the Country to the Present Time,” The American Quarterly Register, (Boston: Perkins and Marvin, 1833) Vol. 5, p. 217. See also Benjamin Franklin Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), pp. 334-335.
[7] Alpheus Packard, “Nationality,” Bibliotheca Sacra and American Biblical Repository (London: Andover: Warren F. Draper, 1856), Vol. XIII p.193, Article VI. See also Benjamin Franklin Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), pp. 334-335.
[8] Benjamin Franklin Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), pp. 334-335.
[9] Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1958), p. 134.
[10] Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1953), pp. 328-329.
[11] Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth (Nashville, TN: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), p. 77.
[12] Colonial National Historical Park, “The First Legislative Assembly at Jamestown, Virginia,” National Park Service (at: http://www.nps.gov/archive/colo/Jthanout/1stASSLY.html) (accessed on September 24, 2010).
[13] Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth (Nashville, TN: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), pp. 1131-114; John Fiske, Civil Government in the United States Considered with some Reference to Its Origins (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1890), p. 146.
[14] Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth (Nashville, TN: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), p. 114.
[15] Old South Leaflets, (Boston: Directors of the Old South Work), p. 372, “Words of John Robinson (1620)”; “John Robinson’s Farewell Letter to the Pilgrims, July 22, 1620,” Pilgrim Hall Museum, July 22, 1620 (at: http://www.pilgrimhall.org/RobinsonLetter.htm).
[16] “Plymouth Colony Legal Structure,” Plymouth Colony Archive Project (at: http://etext.virginia.edu/users/deetz/Plymouth/ccflaw.html) (accessed on September 24, 2010). See also Robert Baird, Religion in America (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1845), p. 51.
[17] “Plymouth Colony Legal Structure,” Plymouth Colony Archive Project (at: http://etext.virginia.edu/users/deetz/Plymouth/ccflaw.html) (accessed on September 24, 2010).
[18] Henry William Elson, History of the United States of America, (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1904), Ch. IV, pp. 103-111. See also “Massachusetts Bay,” History of the USA (at: http://www.usahistory.info/New-England/Massachusetts.html) (accessed on September 30, 2010).
[19] “Plymouth Colony Legal Structure,” Plymouth Colony Archive Project (at: http://etext.virginia.edu/users/deetz/Plymouth/ccflaw.html) (accessed on September 30, 2010).
[20] George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1858), Vol. I, p. 416-417; Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth (Nashville, TN: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), pp. 124-125; Old South Leaflets, (Boston: Directors of the Old South Work), p. 261-280, “The Body of Liberties: The Liberties of the Massachusetts Colonie in New England, 1641.”
[21] “Charter of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” The Avalon Project, July 15, 1663 (at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/ri04.asp).
[22] Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), p. 27 quoting Roger Williams’ The Bloody Tenet, p. 137, quoted by Isaac Backus, Church History of New England, I. 62 of 1839.
[23] “Connecticut to 1763,” Connecticut’s Heritage Gateway (at: http://www.ctheritage.org/encyclopedia/ctto1763/overviewctto1763.htm) (accessed on September 30, 2010).
[24] The Federal and State Constitutions, Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws, Francis Newton Thorpe, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1909), Vol. 1, p. 534, “Charter of Connecticut-1662.”
[25] Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1953), p. 171.
[26] John Fiske, The Beginnings of New England (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1898), pp. 127-128.
[27] Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1953), p. 32. See also, J. M. Mathews, The Bible and Civil Government, in a Course of Lectures (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1851), pp. 67-68.
[28] “Province of West New Jersey in America,” Art. I, The Avalon Project, November 25, 1681 (at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nj08.asp); “The Fundamental Constitutions for the Province of East New Jersey in America, Anno Domini 1683,” Art. II-III, The Avalon Project, 1683 (at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nj10.asp). See also “Colonial America,” United States History (at: http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h591.html) (accessed on September 23, 2010).
[29] Ernest Sutherland Bates, American Faith (New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1940), pp. 186-187.
[30] Ernest Sutherland Bates, American Faith (New York: W. W. Norton & Company Inc., 1940), pp. 186-187.
[31] “Charter for the Province of Pennsylvannia-1681,” The Avalon Project, February 28, 1681 (at: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/pa01.asp).
[32] Noah Webster, Letters of Noah Webster, Harry R. Warfel, editor (New York: Library Publishers, 1953, p. 455, letter to David McClure, October 25, 1836.
[33] Daniel Webster, Address Delivered at Bunker Hill, June 17, 1843, on the Completion of the Monument (Boston: T. R. Marvin, 1843), p. 31.
[34] John Fiske, The Beginnings of New England (Boston and New York: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1898), pp. 267-272.
[35] John Wise, A Vindication of the Government of New- England Churches (Boston: John Boyles, 1772), p. 45.
[36] “Top Ipswich Patriots by Thomas Franklin Waters & Mrs. Eunice Whitney Farley Felten,” Lord Family Album, 1927 (at: http://www.bwlord.com/Ipswich/Waters/TwoPatriots/JohnWise.htm).
[37] John Fiske, Old Virginia and Her Neighbors (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Company, 1901), Vol. II, p. 57, and Vol. I, pp. 306, 311.
[38] Dictionary of American Biography (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930), s.v. “Samuel Cooper.”
[39] Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), p. 90; Stephen Mansfield, Forgotten Founding Father: The Heroic Legacy of George Whitefield (Cumberland House, 2001), p. 112.
[40] Stephen Mansfield, Forgotten Founding Father: The Heroic Legacy of George Whitefield (Cumberland House, 2001), p. 112.
[41] Alice M. Baldwin, The Clergy of Connecticut in Revolutionary Days (Yale University Press, 1936), p. 30.
[42] Claude H. Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922), p. 362.
[43] John Wingate Thornton, Pulpit of the American Revolution (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1860), pp. 147-148. See also Claude H. Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922), p. 362.
[44] George Bancroft, History of the United States from the Discovery of the American Continent (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1858), Vol. V, p. 193.
[45] B.F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), pp. 367-368.
[46] Benjamin Lossing, Pictorial Fieldbook of the Revolution (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1851), Vol. I, p. 440.
[47] Franklin Cole, They Preached Liberty (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1941), p. 34. Only source we can locate is Cole’s.
[48] J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (New York: Charles Scribner, 1864), p. 79.
[49] J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (New York: Charles Scribner, 1864), pp. 79-82
[50] J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (New York: Scribner, 1864), p. 82.
[51] James L. Adams, Yankee Doodle Went to Church: The Righteous Revolution of 1776 (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1989), p. 22.
[52] Franklin Cole, They Preached Liberty (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1941), p. 36.
[53] Franklin Cole, They Preached Liberty (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1941), p. 36.
[54] Franklin Cole, They Preached Liberty (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1941), p. 36.
[55] Franklin Cole, They Preached Liberty (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1941), p. 36.
[56] James L. Adams, Yankee Doodle Went to Church (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1989), p. 153.
[57] Franklin Cole, They Preached Liberty (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1941), p. 36.
[58] Franklin Cole, They Preached Liberty (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1941), p. 36.
[59] J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (New York: Charles Scribner, 1864), p. 68.
[60] J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (New York: Charles Scribner, 1864), p. 69; Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography, s.v. “John Steele.”
[61] J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (New York: Charles Scribner, 1864), pp. 71-72.
[62] Franklin Cole, They Preached Liberty (New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1941), p. 36.
[63] J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (New York: Charles Scribner, 1864), p. 72.
[64] J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (New York: Chrarles Scribner, 1864), p. 69.
[65] Daniel Dorchester, Christianity in the United States from the First Settlement Down to the Present Time (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1888), p. 265.
[66] Boston Gazette, December 7, 1772, article by “Israelite,” and Boston Weekly Newsletter, January 11, 1776, article by Peter Oliver, British official. See also Peter Oliver, Peter Oliver’s Origin & Progress of the American Rebellion, Douglas Adair and John A. Schutz, editors (San Marino California: The Huntington Library, 1961), pp. 29, 41-45; Carl Bridenbaugh, Mitre and Sceptre (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962), p. 334; and Alice M. Baldwin, The New England Clergy and the American Revolution (New York: Frederick Ungar, 1958), pp. 98, 155.
[67] J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (New York: Charles Scribner, 1864), p. 58.
[68] William Buell Sprague, Annals of the American Pulpit: Trinitarian Congregation, (New York: Robert Carter & Brothers, 1857), p. 482.
[69] B.F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864) p. 350.
[70] Daniel Dorchester, Christianity in the United States from the First Settlement Down to the Present Time (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1888), p. 265.
[71] J. T. Headley, The Chaplains and Clergy of the Revolution (New York: Charles Scribner, 1864), p. 58.
[72] Daniel Dorchester, Christianity in the United States from the First Settlement Down to the Present Time (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1888), p. 266.
[73] Daniel Dorchester, Christianity in the United States from the First Settlement Down to the Present Time (New York: Phillips & Hunt, 1888), p. 267.
[74] Linda Stewart, “The Other Cape,” American Heritage (at: http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2001/2/2001_2_50.shtml) (accessed on September 24, 2010).
[75] Clinton Rossiter, Seedtime of the Republic (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1953), p. 219.
[76] “Top Ipswich Patriots by Thomas Franklin Waters & Mrs. Eunice Whitney Farley Felten,” Lord Family Album, 1927 (at: http://www.bwlord.com/Ipswich/Waters/TwoPatriots/JohnWise.htm).
[77] “Top Ipswich Patriots by Thomas Franklin Waters & Mrs. Eunice Whitney Farley Felten,” Lord Family Album, 1927 (at: http://www.bwlord.com/Ipswich/Waters/TwoPatriots/JohnWise.htm).
[78] Claude H. Van Tyne, The Causes of the War of Independence (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1922), Vol. I, p. 357.
[79] John Wise, A Vindication of the Government of New England Churches: and the Churches’ Quarrel Espoused (Boston: Congregational Board of Publication, 1860), pp. xx-xxi, “Introductory Remarks” by Rev. J. S. Clark. See also B.F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 341
[80] Calvin Coolidge, “Speech on the One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence,” Teaching American History, July 5, 1926 (at: http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=41).
[81] Political Sermons of the American Founding Era: 1730-1805, Ellis Sandoz, editor (Indianapolis, Liberty Fund: 1998), Vol. 1, p. 530, from Sermons 17 on John Witherspoon intro.
[82] B.F. Morris, Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States, Developed in the Official and Historical Annals of the Republic (Philadelphia: George W. Childs, 1864), p. 366.
[83] William Warren Sweet, The Story of Religion in America (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1950), p. 182.
[84] Frank Moore, Patriot Preachers of the American Revolution (Boston: Gould and Lincoln: 1860), p. 260.
[85] James Hutchinson Smylie, American Clergymen and the Constitution of the United States of America (New Jersey: Princeton Theological Seminary, doctoral dissertation 1958), pp. 127-129, 139, 143.
[86] John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1987), p. 352, n. 15.
[87] Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: American Philosophical Society, 1951), Vol. I, p. 474, letter to Elias Boudinot, “Observations on the Federal Procession in Philadelphia,” July 9, 1788.
[88] Gazette of the United States (Washington, D.C.: May 9, 1789), p. 1, quoting from “Extract from “American Essays: The Importance of the Protestant Religion Politically Considered.”
[89] “About BLS: History,” Boston Latin School (at: http://www.bls.org/podium/default.aspx?t=113646&rc=0) (accessed on October 1, 2010)
[90] The Code of 1650, Being a Compilation of the Earliest Laws and Orders of the General Court of Connecticut (Hartford: Silus Andrus, 1822), pp. 90-92. See alsoChurch of the Holy Trinity v. U. S., 143 U. S. 457, 467 (1892).
[91] Appleton’s Cyclopedia of American Biography (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1888), s.v. “John Harvard.”
[92] Noah Webster, Letters to a Young Gentleman Commencing His Education (New Haven: Howe & Spalding, 1823), p. 237.
[93] John Maclean, History of the College of New Jersey, from its Origin in 1746 to the Commencement of 1854 (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1877), Vol. I, p. 70.
[94] The History of the College of William and Mary, from its Foundation, 1660, to 1874 (Richmond, VA: J.W. Randolph & English, 1874), p. 95.
[95] “Dartmouth History,” Dartmouth University (at: http://www.dartmouth.edu/home/about/history.html) (accessed on October 1, 2010).
[96] Warren A. Nord, Religion & American Education (North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1995), p. 84, quoting from James Tunstead Burtchaell, “The Decline and Fall of the Christian College I,” First Things, May 1991, p. 24, and George Marsden, The Soul of the American University (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 11, and Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth (Nashville: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), p. 198.
[97] E. P. Cubberley, Public Education in the United States (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1919), p. 204. See also Luther A. Weigle, The Pageant of America: American Idealism, Ralph Henry Gabriel, editor (Yale University Press, 1928), Vol. X, p. 315.
[98] Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth (Nashville: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), pp. 209-210.
[99] Noah Webster, A Collection of Papers on Political, Literary, and Moral Subjects (New York: Webster and Clark, 1843), p. 293, from his “Reply to a Letter of David McClure on the Subject of the Proper Course of Study in the Girard College, Philadelphia. New Haven, October 25, 1836.”
[100] The Christian Treasury Containing Contributions from Ministers and Members of Various Evangelical Denominations (Edinburgh: Johnstone, Hunter and Co., 1877), p. 203.
[101] Charles B. Galloway, Christianity and the American Commonwealth (Nashville, TN: Publishing House Methodist Episcopal Church, 1898), p. 77.

11 Things to Remember When You Think You're Not Good Enough



Some days turn out better or worse than others – that’s a fact. But ultimately, the way we feel about our life and ourselves has the biggest impact on the outcome of each day.  Happiness and confidence can create outcomes that exceed our expectations, like a continual ray of sunshine even on a cloudy day.

But, when we are down on ourselves, especially when we think we are not good enough, life can easily and quickly take a turn for the worse.  We can unexpectedly find ourselves entrenched in a deep, dark hole. When we repeatedly allow ourselves feel this way for days, weeks or even months at a time, it can have detrimental effects on our happiness, health, relationships, and careers.

That’s why it’s best to prevent a self-esteem slide. Sometimes the smallest bit of inspiration can help us turn things around when we feel we are not good enough.

Here is a quick list of 11 things to remember when you think you’re not good enough. Save this for yourself, you never know when you may need it and share it with others. Let’s put an end to the false reality of the negative belief, “you’re not good enough”!

11 THINGS TO REMEMBER WHEN YOU THINK YOU’RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH

1. Life is about progress, not perfection. Strive for excellence!


Life is perfectly imperfect. Striving for perfection is not necessarily a bad thing – it makes you reach higher and work harder. However, it’s a goal that can be rather unattainable and you will always be working on being “perfect”. This may leave you feeling like you are “not good enough”, especially in a world where the race toward “perfectionism” usually involves losing who you truly are to emulate what others think you should be.

Instead, strive for excellence. Excellence is far superior and you can create the level of personal excellence that works for you and where you are.  Most of us are juggling so many tasks in so many areas that we cannot possibly perfect in every area and still be happy, but we attain excellence and it’s far more rewarding!

2. What you do right NOW can create a better outcome.



Nothing is written in stone, unless it’s in the past. Even then we can change the way we perceive it.
We can’t truly predict the future, because it’s ever changing based on what we do right now.
The best way to move forward is to be present and put our full focus on the now in a positive manner. When we feel good about the things that are going well and display gratitude for what we have we allow for more of those good things to come to us.

The same is true when we focus on negative, however, positive thinking is much more powerful and reigns supreme. In fact, some say it is 1000x stronger. So, no matter what happened,, be grateful you are still here to correct it and move forward. Take this time, even if it’s an eensy-weensy minute, and take a deep breath, focus on the good and allow yourself the ability to help create a better outcome.

3. Positive thinking is your birthright.



No matter what situation you are in, positive thinking can and will always come to your rescue if you allow it. The power of positivity is a gift to us from divine energy. Divine energy is nothing BUT positive energy.

If you want things to turn around for your highest good you must keep your faith, release fear, and keep your focus on solutions. Positive thinking is your birthright. It can always improve any situation, no matter how dire it may appear.

4. There is more RIGHT with you than wrong with you.

Even during your struggles, don’t forget to focus on your strengths. Too often our culture looks at each other’s “weaknesses” and wants to put focus on improving them. While having a balanced mind, body and soul is important some of our weaknesses exist to balance some of our greatest strengths.
When we switch our focus to what is right about ourselves, we could probably write down a long list. In fact, if you need to do that exercise, do it! Focus on your strengths and what you do well. In the areas that you could improve, be reasonable with yourself and if it’s an area you truly believe you need to improve create action steps to do so. Either way, there IS more right with you than wrong with you.

5. Everyone makes mistakes!


The positive perspective and the real truth about mistakes are that they are an opportunity to teach us something and allow us to grow.  At times they can also point out our weaknesses so that we can grow stronger in that area. We are students here and mistakes are evidence we are trying and doing the best we can.
When we continually learn and grow from our mistakes we begin to see bigger success in our life, more fulfillment and true and lasting happiness. Success takes work and mistakes are part of that.

6. Remember you are exactly where you need to be right now.


It may not seem like it, but the entire Universe has orchestrated itself to create your life where it is right now.  It may not be where you want to be right now, but sometimes you have to go through a bit of bramble to get to the clover field.

So when you feel like you’ve failed or that you’ll never reach your goals, remind yourself that the Universe didn’t say no, it just said not yet. Continually remind yourself that you are in the perfect place right now, and continue moving forward in faith.

7. Be kind and gentle with yourself. You’re doing the best you can.


You don’t have to beat yourself up over not “getting there” fast enough, or as fast as the people you wish to be like. As long as you can come away at the end of the day knowing you gave it your all, that’s all anyone can truly do.  Your light is shining, no matter how small the flame.  Even if your flame is the smallest in the world, it will still cut through the darkest night.

You could even think of a flower garden.  Each flower blooms at it’s own pace and shows it’s unique beauty as it does so.  Continue reaching for the light, allowing yourself to be nurtured.  Much like the flower, your life will come into bloom as well.

8. You deserve your own unconditional love and forgiveness.

“Be gentle with yourself. You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars; you have a right to be here.”- Max Ehrmann
Begrudging yourself or holding on to negative thoughts about yourself will not bring you justice – the grief and pain will only end up affecting you.

Let go of the bitterness and resentment towards yourself or your situation. Let go of the negative feelings and remove the focus and attention to the unwanted. Forgiving yourself for making a mistake and allowing yourself to “love YOU no matter what” is wonderful. It will lead you to even more positive feelings of understanding, compassion and empathy, allowing you to grow into a better experience.

9. There’s always a solution, keep looking!


Sometimes you might feel like you’ve reached the end of the road. Lucky for you, there’s always a small dirt path called faith that you can continue to follow when times get tough.
Follow a path of positive faith and just watch new solutions appear. It may be a simple solution, and it may only be a part of the solution that you need to put together. The puzzle pieces are always there – it’s up to you to put the picture in place.

10. The only comparing and competing you should be doing is with yourself.

As mentioned multiple times throughout this article, there’s no need to try to compete or catch up with those who are in your field.  Be the best version of YOU.  Be the change you want to see in YOURSELF.  Allow the future vision of YOU to be your hero.

11. You can’t always change things, but you can ALWAYS change the way you look at things.

The present moment was created as a collective manifestation of your past thoughts, words and actions.  Sometimes, this can be so tough that you may feel like you’re not good enough to get through it, and if you’re reflecting on the reality that you’ve created, it may even make you feel like you’re not good enough to handle your co-creative ability.

The bottom line is that times can get tough – but there’s nothing wrong with believing you’re tougher.  Because when you believe you ARE good enough to create the life you desire, and you believe that YOU ARE good enough to make it through any situation.  When this happens, the way you look at things suddenly change, and before you know it, your reality positively changes with it.

Now, who was it that said you’re not good enough?

Exercise Your God Given Right to Independent Thought


I have said for several years now, “I think therefore I am neither Republican or Democrat.” People who are unaffiliated with a political party, while sometimes thought of as being indecisive, are actually people who demonstrate the ability to think for themselves. Anyone who is blindly loyal to the platform of a political party has given up their God-given right to exercise their independent thought processes. They degrade their own worth.

If we are to solve the massive economic problems facing our nation, we will need innovative independent thinkers from all walks of life. They can contribute to solutions that will eventually benefit all of us, rather than blindly following the dictates of a political power structure that is only interested in its own self-aggrandizement.

“We the People” need to awaken to the sad fact that our nation is being exploited by both political power structures. They pass laws that apply to the masses and not themselves. They become adolescents and point fingers when this nation face devastating challenges and cries out for principle leadership. They manipulate the American people with lies, rhetoric and deceit, and continuously exploit the ignorance and lack of understanding of the people who elected them.

How is it possible that the best and brightest in the executive and legislative branches of our government can’t find common-sense solutions on the critical issues that confront us today ? We need to focus less on electing the intellectual and Ivy League elite of our nation and return farmers, factory workers, carpenters, teachers, law enforcement and military leaders to the highest offices of the land. When electing the individuals that our Congress envisioned during our founding, we will return a modicum of common sense and true leadership to our nation. When this happens, then and only then will America return to the pinnacle of spiritual and economic success.

Before you react to the above, ask yourself the following questions:

1) In the last ten years, have I voted outside of my political party?

2) Can you look at the actual issues involved in an election, and select a candidate that sees the issues the same way you do and not take into consideration the candidates political affiliation?

3) If I told you that if you are a Republican today, prior to 1864 your political philosophy would have made you a Democrat, would you take the time to read and find out if I was telling you the truth or not?

4) If I told you that if you are a Democrat today, prior to 1864 your political philosophy would have made you a Republican, would you take the time to read and find out if I was telling your the truth or not?

5) If I asked you the basic platform beliefs of the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, and Green Party, would you know the difference, not just in whether those four parties actually existed, but what their political ‘agenda’ is?

The issues today are so blended, so interwoven due to the cultural background of this country. If you are unable to look on either side of the aisle and realize that sometimes the other side has a good idea and not discount it because “that’s what the Conservatives want to do”, or “the Liberals are just trying to empty our wallets” kind of mentality, then I contend you are a blind party loyalist.

People need to learn that it is okay to agree with the other guy without looking at their political affiliation. Just because you are a card carrying member of a union, or the NRA, or some other group, doesn’t mean you have to vote based on what you read or hear in their literature and TV ads. Folks do the research, if an issue is important to you, get off Facebook, turn off the TV, and start reading.

Learn how to use Google, learn how to use Bing, for God’s sake and the sake of this country, learn how to use that brain of yours and stop letting other people think for you and tell you what you think!

“Living is easy with eyes closed
Misunderstanding all you see
It’s getting hard to be someone, but it all works out
It doesn’t matter much to me.” – John Lennon

An Important Distinction: Democracy vs Republic


It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government–that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically–is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy–a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government–needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.

A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature–the elective body there being the House of Commons–and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the “excesses of democracy” and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments, while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures which were mislabelled “Constitutions.”

Neither the governors not the courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individual’s unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited government, was adopted by Massachusetts–next New Hampshire in 1784, other States later.

It was in this connection that Jefferson, in his “Notes On The State of Virginia” written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence, saying: “An elective despotism was not the government we fought for . . .” (Emphasis Jefferson’s.) He also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature, under the so-called “Constitution”–in reality a mere Act of that body:
“All the powers of government, legislative, executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands, and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice.”
This topic–the danger to the people’s liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative majority–is discussed in The Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jefferson’s above-quoted comments).

The Framing Convention’s records prove that by decrying the “excesses of democracy” The Framers were, of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States; their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the spirit of the truly Free Man in America–the people at large of that period–who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the “excesses of democracy,” were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a Republic as the proper form of government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic can provide the best safeguards–in truth in the long run the only effective safeguards (if enforced in practice)–for the people’s liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracy’s form and system of unlimited Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in March 1789 that:
“The tyranny of the legislatures is the most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the executive will come it’s turn, but it will be at a remote period.” (Text per original.)
Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
“Repeated violations of those parchment barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has been opposed to a popular current.”
It is correct to say that in any Democracy–either a Direct or a Representative type–as a form of government, there can be no legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949–indeed, it has power to abolish anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.

For a period of some centuries ago, some English judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative Democracy. Under this form of government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there are irrelevant to this discussion.

Madison’s observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as follows:
“Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.”
Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly repugnant to–is the very antithesis of–the traditional American system: that of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the people’s forming their government so as to permit them to possess only “just powers” (limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.

A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution–adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment–with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term “the people” means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention–especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose–to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government–of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams’ “Autobiography” commenting on the framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
“By conventions of representatives, freely, fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act.”
Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the “Essex Result” (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.

The first genuine and soundly founded Republic in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously noted, the so-called “Constitutions” adopted by some States in 1776 were mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully – it took several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was framed by the Federal Convention for the people’s consideration and then ratified by the people of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.

This system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only “just powers,” limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the “snob-rule” of a governing Elite and the “mob-rule” of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights–to endanger the people’s liberties.

With regard to the republican form of government (that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist no. 55) which merits quoting here–as follows:
“As there is a degree of depravity in mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of esteem and confidence. Republican government (that of a Republic) presupposes the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form. Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and devouring one another.” (Emphasis added.)
It is noteworthy here that the above discussion, though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label “Republic” has been misapplied in other countries to other and different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly misunderstood and widely misused–for example as long ago as the time of Plato, when he wrote his celebrated volume, The Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even remotely resembling–having essential characteristics of–a genuine Republic. Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing of the Constitution for instance, to “the ancient republics,” but in any such connection the term was used loosely–by way of contrast to a monarchy or to a Direct Democracy–often using the term in the sense merely of a system of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example, by John Adams in his Thoughts on Government” and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution limiting The Majority.

From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve Basic American Principles.