Would you be a Patriot or Loyalist?

Discussion in 'History Forum' started by Dr. Bob, Sep 2, 2003.

  1. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    In US history of the great rebellion of 1776, many baptists were fiercely patriotic and advocating rebelling against George III.

    Others were passively loyalist (Tories) and felt the Bible taught obedience to governmental authority, even if evil or repressive.

    (1) Which would you have been?

    (2) What Scripture would you use to justify your position?

    Thanks.
     
  2. Taufgesinnter

    Taufgesinnter
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2003
    Messages:
    1,135
    Likes Received:
    0
    I'd have remained loyal to my lawful government, as a subject of the realm.

    Romans 13 together with "rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft" (aside from the issue of refusing to fight on either side in carnal warfare).
     
  3. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Me too, Tauf. Bob the Tory.

    IF the government made unbiblical laws (like Daniel not to pray or Peter not to preach) then we have to rebel, "obeying God rather than men" . . and take the consequences of such rebellion.

    But I don't see that in the American Rebellion of 1776. Or for that matter in the Second Revolution in 1860.
     
  4. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,651
    Likes Received:
    312
    The question arises to which government would I be loyal to. As say a Virginian, should I be loyal the elected government of my colony (the House of Burgesses predated the Revolution by many a year) or to HM and his government in London. Keep in mind, many of us viewed ourselves as loyal free born Englishmen. We looked upon ourselves (especially in the Northern Colonies) as heirs to the hard won rights and privileges bought by our father's blood during the Civil War and the Glorious Revolution. We held our colonial assemblies as the equal in our territory to Parliament in London. So, when King George sought to rule in the colonies when he could only reign in the United kingdom, we sought to deal with him as our fathers dealt with Charles I and James II.
     
  5. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would have been a Patriot in 1776 and a Confederate in 1861. God raises governments up and God tears governments down. And if was God's will to use me in doing so, I would follow.
     
  6. Gina B

    Gina B
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2000
    Messages:
    16,944
    Likes Received:
    1
    I agree with Squire.
    It wasn't an established government being rebelled against, it was a government attempting to establish itself, wasn't it? :confused:
    BTW, wasn't Torie used almost as a cuss word? Maybe it's just where I grew up, lol, I remember "Torie torie torie" being used to tease new kids.
    Gina
     
  7. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Your all treasonous rebellious colonists, and I'm acoming to hang the sorry lot of you, on behalf of Her Majesty. In Christian love, naturally.

    Yours in Christ (and running for cover!)

    Matt

    PS BTW, you lucky lot got rid of the Tories in 1783; we had to wait until 1997 :eek:
     
  8. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    But seriously though, folks, this is a difficult one. I'd always taken the view that the 13 colonies in 1775/6 and the CSA in 1861 were in breach of Rom 13. However, when I look at parallels from UK history, the situation is ot so clear-cut. For instance, as a good Baptist, I probably would have raised the standard for Parliament against Charles I in 1642 and similarly against his son in 1688-9. So the American Revolution and Civil War are similarly not so clear as I once thought.

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  9. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,651
    Likes Received:
    312
    Thanks for the perspective, Matt. It is worth noteing that in the Revolution, the legislative branchs of the various and sundry colonies sided with the Continentals. They looked upon themselves as the locally elected versions of the Parliament in London. The governors were for the most part Royal appointees who stood in for the Crown. Viceroys if you please. Effectively, what occured at the start of the Revolution was the coalescence of 13 replays of the English Civil War.

    The 1860-65 War is another matter. One question that I would have to answer is:</font>
    • Am I citizen of the United States because I was born inside the national borders of the US?
      or</font>
    • Am I a citizen of the United States because I am a citizen of the State of ______?</font>
     
  10. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Squire - That is a great question. And the regional difference in the reply would show the division in 1860.

    Most Southerners were large and small farmer and landowners. They were loyal to their sovereign state. This was home, property - the land they knew and loved for generations. Most of their fathers had lived in the COLONY before there was a Federal government. They were involved strongly in local government and did not want to be told what to do (about anything, but esp taxes, tariffs and slaves).

    Northerners were much more influenced by immigration. And big city landless population. Their loyalty would be to the new COUNTRY they had adopted and come to. They did not have the same heritage and history and subsequent loyalty to a colony/state or even region. Almost all of the midwest was settled at that time . . 80%+ from transplants ABOVE the Mason-Dixon line. There was a pride from being from Wisconsin or Maine, but MORE pride in being from the Union.

    Conclusion:

    Southrans believed in the United States IN America . . which could be annulled and disunited by the rights of each sovereign state.

    Yankees believed in the United States OF America as one nation, indivisible. To destroy that country by secession was TREASON.
     
  11. Squire Robertsson

    Squire Robertsson
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2000
    Messages:
    9,651
    Likes Received:
    312
    I have always contended that 60-65 War was fought a generation too late for the Southern States to win. If they had followed through and left the Union in the Nullification Controversy, Andy Jackson may have lead the Regular Army South, but the North did not have the wherewithal to win like they did in 65. A war in the 1820's would have been a quagmire for Jackson. The North did not have the manufacturing base, railroads and telegraphs, and most importantly California and Nevada's gold and silver. Further, the Mexico still controlled Texas, making an effective blockade problematical. But on the bright side for the North, Winfield Scott was still vigorous and able to take the field. And, the South did not have the generals and officer corps it would later have for its Army.
     

Share This Page

Loading...