Download History of Liberty part 2

The History of Liberty, Part II
By Reed Benson
With every passing year, the liberties we enjoy as Americans are nibbled away just a bit
more. As a boy growing up in the 1970s, no law compelled us to wear seat belts in our
cars. It is a good idea, I admit—but there was no penalty for not wearing one. As a
young man in the 1990s, I was fortunate to visit the capitol of the United States in
Washington. I could just stroll right in and gaze up at the vast rotunda—with no searches
through my bags or daypack. And until last year, I was free to not purchase health
insurance; my physical welfare was my business alone. Now, however, much-loved
Obamacare is limiting our options. These are just a few examples of the steady
increments in which we are losing our liberty in this nation, a country originally forged
on principles of freedom that were obtained at great personal cost to the founding
generation.
The first portion of this article appeared in the Fall 2014 issue of the Watchman and
described the fragile nature of liberty across the pages of world history. Two vital
precepts were expounded. First, liberty cannot exist without a corresponding high degree
of personal responsibility. The abandonment of the spirit of self-reliance always erodes
freedom. And more to the point, responsible living cannot be separated from application
of God's Law. Second, liberty has flourished among only one race on earth. Only among
the Caucasian race, those who are the direct genetic descendants of the ancient Israelites,
does one find that the impulse of liberty results in true exercise of the same. In part one
of this article, we traced the history of national liberty from its biblical origin when the
Hebrews escaped from the bondage of slavery under the Egyptian Pharaohs, established
the Hebrew Commonwealth under the Mosaic Law-code (the most generous of all
ancient systems of law), eventually abandoned Jehovah, lost their freedom, and were
returned to slavery under the fierce Assyrian regime. We further traced liberty in world
history as the Israelites again escaped from slavery, migrated to Europe, and founded the
Anglo-Saxon tradition of political freedom that found expression in more than one
European nation. The first portion of this essay finished with a profile of one of the most
eloquent proclamations of liberty: the Scottish Declaration of Independence of 1320.
Regretfully, we were forced to conclude that even among the Israelite people of the
world, the only people on our planet with an innate passion for freedom, true liberty, is
not always realized. It is among the most fragile of flowers.
A Coffin for King Charles
As we take up the story once again and trace liberty through history, we find ourselves at
a most distasteful moment in time: the English Civil War. Englishmen do not always
relish the retelling of these episodes, but a brief rendering is quite important and, in fact,
has a happy outcome. The 1640s witnessed a bitter conflict between two opposing
parties, both of whom were somewhat misunderstood by each other. On the one side was
the royal Stuart dynasty, sincerely convinced that they ruled by divine right, and any
perceived opposition to their authority was also rebellion against God. Known as
Cavaliers, the royalists sought to bring broad powers to the hands of King Charles I and
maintained a generous measure of sympathy for the Roman Catholic tradition. The other
camp was that of Parliament. Known as Roundheads (for their shorn hair), they believed
the King's powers should be limited, and they scorned Roman Catholicism in all its
forms, preferring the high ideals of the Puritan way. After four years of bloody battles
and the ripping asunder of towns and families, the conclusion of this ugly affair was that
the king's cause was lost, and he was a captive in the hands of his adversaries. But what
should they do with him? To release him would surely re-ignite this horrible war. So,
after much soul-searching and hand-wringing, the Roundheads executed their king,
Charles I. England would now be a true republic, without any royal master!
This proved harder than it looked. Oliver Cromwell, the brilliant commander of the
Roundheads, was obliged to assume the powers of a de-facto dictator until his death some
ten years later. But after a full decade of his severe regime, the old king did not seem so
bad! So rather than run any risk of another dictatorship, the English brought back the
Stuarts, enthroning Charles II, the son of the slain king. He ruled quietly for some years
until his death, when his brother James II took the reins. Now James was not content to
be the passive figurehead his deceased elder brother had been. He wanted full power
restored! By now, some time had gone by. It was the 1680s—and he assumed the
English would accept a tough, hard-nosed monarch who did as he pleased.
That was a mistake. In short order, another great rupture occurred between the king's
authority and Parliament. War again loomed on the horizon. Then, in 1688, a sudden
surprise: James II ran away! His supporters had evaporated, and he simply decided to
flee to the continent of Europe, never to return, permanently damaging his cause. As you
surely can imagine, the great majority of the English rejoiced at having avoided another
bitter civil conflict and exulted in the rights of the people being upheld against what they
believed were kingly abuses of power. So thrilled were they at this outcome that from
henceforth, this event was known as the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Another royal
relative was snatched from near obscurity to sit on the throne, one who was both devoutly
Protestant and also willing to share real power with parliament. This was Mary, who with
her husband William of Orange, ruled as joint heirs, William and Mary.
The glory of this event was the development of a remarkable document that codified all
of this: the English Bill of Rights. Taking its cues from the old Anglo-Saxon traditions
of Alfred the Great, and later the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights established
clear principles that protected the people from governments that sought to trample the
rights of the people.
No King but King Jesus
The spirit of liberty followed the pathway set forth by Jacob's ancient prophecy: "Joseph
is a fruitful bough, even a fruitful bough by a well; whose branches have run over the
wall" (Genesis 49:22). The well of water was the great Atlantic Ocean, and the wall was
the barrier that ocean represented. Joseph's seed, the Anglo-Saxon people of Britain, did
indeed run over the wall, fruitfully spreading themselves in a distant land, America.
Freedom became the pre-eminent theme of American history, and despite setbacks in
recent decades, remains so today.
By far, the most important expression of liberty in America's history was the American
War of Independence. It is a saga beloved and well known and need not be repeated here
except for a few overlooked elements that provide the connective tissue for this essay.
First, the colonists most responsible for launching the American War of Independence
were Israelites of a noble and somewhat tempestuous tribe in Israel. No, not Joseph, but
another of the sons of Jacob that walked with Joseph. A single simple heraldic symbol
identifies them as Hebrews and further marks many of the most important Revolutionary
War patriots as being members of the tribe of Dan. How? It is an established fact that in
the eighth and ninth centuries of the Christian era, large numbers of Danes settled in
northeastern England, a region often called East Anglia. So numerous were these Vikings
that moved there from Denmark that it was simply referred to for a long period as
"Danelaw." They became permanent residents; as further centuries rolled by, they were
absorbed into the mainstream of the English population. What is also known, but with
little significance attached to it, is this fact: most of the Separatists and Puritans that left
England in the 1600s to settle in New England came from this precise region. For
example, Scrooby, the original home of the Pilgrims who founded Plymouth in
Massachusetts, is in this portion of England. The great wave of Puritans who followed
them in the 1630s were mostly from East Anglia, the old settling grounds of the Danes.
These Puritans, although thoroughly English in speech and custom, were genetically
Danish. As readers of this publication know, that means they were descendants of the
tribe of Dan. Now, connect this to the American Revolution, and what do you have? The
movement for independence was spawned by Massachusetts men in the 1770s. And what
symbol was among the most prominent in their banners? The serpent. An odd one to
choose, it would seem, but there it was: both in the "Don't Tread on Me" flag and the
"Join or Die" banner. Yet, it fulfills precisely the ancient prophecy of Jacob that Dan
would be independent, headstrong, freewheeling, and reckless: "Dan shall be a serpent
by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall
backward" (Genesis 49:17). Just like the most famous biblical Danite of all, Samson,
the modern Danites of New England were ready to take care of themselves without any
regard for protocol and orthodox expectations. Over a few small taxes, they were eager
to fight. The spirit of liberty was alive and well, brought to the New World by Hebrews
descended from the tribe of Dan.
While the Danites of Massachusetts provided an impetuous lurch toward freedom in the
English colonies, a second more deliberative impulse was percolating among others.
Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptists, and even some staid Lutherans were challenging the
premise that King George III had the right to rule as he pleased. Like the Stuarts who
were determined to defend the "divine right of kings," George also, albeit more softly,
subscribed to this theory. For many colonists who did not care for the stuffy Anglican
church, of which George was the head, this was too much. You see, too many Anglicans
were eager to support George's "divine right" and use this tool to suppress other
denominations as best they could. As the commotion that the Massachusetts Danites had
stirred up gradually spread to other colonies, a new cry was soon heard: "No King but
King Jesus!" This call rejected the "divine right of kings" and made it plain that the
unwanted taxes that had so irritated the New Englanders was not the only issue in
dispute. Broader theories about the nature of human government were now open for
scrutiny.
This takes us to one of the unsung heroes of the American republic and the eventual form
of government that nation took, the Constitution. George Mason, a Virginian, was no
rabble-rouser like the fire-breathers from Boston. Neither was he a religious idealist
hoping to inaugurate the millennial reign of Jesus, although he was faithful churchman.
And for certain, he was not a natural warrior, like his famous neighbor George
Washington. But Mason was a deeply thoughtful man who knew history and had a good
grasp on the frailties of human nature. A member of the Virginia legislature, he labored
to open up considerable liberties to people in his state in 1776, with his draft of the
Virginia Declaration of Rights, modeled on the English Bill of Rights of 1688. Later, as a
delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, he led the movement to
compel a Bill of Rights to be added to the Constitution before ratification. Indeed,
without Mason, it is almost certain that this bulwark of liberty, the American Bill of
Rights, would never have been a reality.
Pressure to erode the noble intentions of the Bill of Rights has been growing in recent
decades. Yet this insightful addition to the Constitution remains the primary bulwark of
liberty in the United States of America since its adoption over two centuries ago. It is a
great treasure for the Caucasian Israelites who developed and preserved its precepts of
limited government and freedom.
Bitter Strife
Few topics in American history arouse passions as much as the American Civil War, or
as some prefer, the War of Southern Independence or even the War of Northern
Aggression. Not only can Americans not agree on what to call this war, but also there is
sharp division as to the real causes of the war, the true motivations of each side, and the
nature of the consequences.
Ironically, both northern and southern apologists insist they were fighting for greater
liberty. Some claim the northern Yankees sought to preserve the Union that had been
formed in the American War of Independence and, of course, to free slaves held in
servitude. Others argue that Southern secessionists hoped to preserve the freedom of the
States and resisted centralized tyranny of the Federal government. How can it be that the
men fighting in both armies were convinced that they were fighting for the true cause of
liberty and their opponents were, therefore, agents of oppression?
Not only is this far too complex a question to answer in this short essay, but it also is a
distraction from our central theme. What is vital to note for our purposes here is that the
newly divided nation was universally consumed with the concept of liberty and dedicated
to preserving their respective notions of what that meant—even at the high price of
multiplied thousands of battlefield deaths and incalculable destruction of property.
Flowing in the veins of the Israelites of the United States of America were innate desires
to be free, exercise their liberties, not be told what to do, and to spread that philosophy to
as many others as possible. Only among the true descendants of the ancient Hebrews is
this passion such a highly profiled portion of their innate nature.
The Anti-Imperialist Imperialists
Across the corridors of time, the world has seen many empires. Ancient empires
followed a universal pattern: conquer the enemy, slaughter those that resist, enslave
many young healthy survivors, and extract heavy tribute from the rest. Nations so
subdued existed solely for the benefit of the conquering people and were treated with
utter contempt. Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Persia, Greece, and Rome did not veer from
this cruel paradigm.
More recent European empires altered this formula dramatically, taking a paternalistic
attitude toward the constituent parts of their realm. The British Empire, for example, felt
duty bound to establish schools, build roads and bridges, and establish local, selfgoverning assemblies in the nations over which they had dominion. But no nation has
been as generous, kind, and benevolent as the Unites States of America.
Indeed, every nation over which the Unites States has exerted control has been delivered
a bequest that is quite uncharacteristic of superpowers. America is so besotted with the
idea of liberty that we insist on exporting it to all nations that fall under our sphere of
influence. Indeed, we invade nations to liberate them! Think about this irony: we
forcibly enter countries that are internally at peace with themselves and need no rescuing
from anyone. Then we impose our concept of freedom in full confidence that they will
joyfully embrace it once they have tasted of its dainties. Liberty is so ingrained into our
genetics, our culture, our collective essence that we have difficulty conceiving that
anyone would not want it!
We are accused of being imperialists, of taking advantage of other countries; yet, if that
charge has the slightest tinge of accuracy, we are surely the most anti-imperialist of all
imperial states. The nations we allegedly harm we also give billions of dollars in
benefits. (On second thought, make that trillions if the entire aggregate is calculated!) In
the last century we have liberated, along with providing the consequent financial goodies,
the Philippines, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, South Korea, Kuwait,
Iraq, Afghanistan, and a bevy of smaller countries. In each case, we aided the
development of self-government, fostered freedoms most never even imagined, and dug
deeply into our own pockets to make it all possible. Meanwhile, few if any benefits ever
trickled back our direction. Never has there been a nation so eager to export liberty.
It is in the United States of America, buoyed by the innate impulse of liberty among the
genetic Israelites who still constitute the larger part of its inhabitants, that freedom is still
celebrated. No other people on the planet talk about it, dream about it, and assume it will
always be available to the degree that we do.
Perhaps, however, we should be asking ourselves this: how long will it prosper in our
own motherland? Will its curtailment on our home shores continue? Is this beautiful yet
somewhat fragile blossom destined to wither? Are the multitudes of non-Israelites
flooding our soil capable of sustaining the spirit of liberty? Let us pray that God will
show mercy on the Israelites of America and aid us in this time of growing darkness.
We would do well to remember that our political liberty is contingent upon our obedience
to God's law. Time and again, our biblical ancestors found themselves in trouble at the
hand of oppressors and were compelled to humble themselves before God. In closing, let
us reconnect to one of these stirring episodes: "And it came to pass, when the children
of Israel cried unto the LORD because of the Midianites, That the LORD sent a
prophet unto the children of Israel, which said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God
of Israel, I brought you up from Egypt, and brought you forth out of the house of
bondage; and delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all
that oppressed you, and drave them out from before you, and gave you their land; and
I said unto you, I am the LORD your God . . ." (Judges 6:7-10). Perhaps we should be
on our knees in repentance for our transgressions and remembrance of our need to obey
God’s law to the best of our abilities—to the end that the Lord God extends our liberties
or else sustains us as tyranny unfolds around us.