history, its value to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Grandpa looked at me as I was doing my chores and asked, “What’s wrong, boy, you’ve been going around all day as if you’ve been carrying Bessie’s new-born calf on your shoulders the whole time?”

“It’s nothing, grandpa. Its just my American history class that is getting me down. I hate it.”

Grandpa just grinned and ruffled my hair as he said,

“Boy, as you have already know I am a man who advocates for free will. In order to be consistent in that principle I must concede that every man possesses that same attribute. Furthermore, if I am a man of free will in all of my deeds then I cannot envision a time or place that anyone else would not apply that same principle. Justice is without meaning or purpose with the concept of determinism.

That means only one thing. I cannot promote any principle that would require that another man abide by my will rather than their own. This applies to politics as well as our private lives. In other words, I cannot vote for someone seeking political office without recognizing that he will act in accordance to his own conscience when he casts a vote in regards to the laws to be enacted.

To declare otherwise is to be an advocate for determinism and that would make me look hypocritical. But more important is the fact that I would be advocating for a dictatorial government by its very concept. And to rid ourselves of this form of governing can be said as one of the reasons for seceding from the mother country in 1776.

One of the things we know of the founding fathers from the study of history is that they were very religious men. A person can see this throughout their correspondences with others. While I cannot prove it I’d say it could easily be assumed that they knew of and accepted the principle that the king ruled by divine right and to secede would be to go against the will of God unless secession could be justified. It would be from this that the founding fathers felt the need for a written Declaration of Independence.

It was within this document that the founding fathers declared their justification for secession It is in this document that the founding fathers declared that it was the king who was not abiding by the will of God, not the colonies. It is within this document we can find the foundational basis that man was created to govern himself with a free will.

Now, through the study of history we can see that not every man accepted this concept at the time. There were some who wanted to set up a government in the form of a monarchy. So, it can’t be said that the idea of a free will was universally accepted principle yet. This very fact leads us to believe this was a whole new way of understanding man and his place in society as well as a whole new understanding of God and His role in the lives of men.

When we look back into history we will see that a religion/state relationship of government in almost every sovereign State. And the choice of religion was determined by the monarch of that State at the time. With a given that each monarch had religious advisers at his command we can see that it created the impression that being in accordance to the will of the monarch was to be in accordance to the will of God. This, to me, was the whole purpose and intent of the religion/state relationship for governing.

Basically, to paraphrase President Lincoln, a religion/state relationship created a situation where the people had a government as determined of God, by God and for God. And to rebel against the State was perceived as rebelling against God. We can know from history that some States still abided by this principle by establishing a church/State relationship. So, we can reasonably assume that the founding fathers recognized that the laws of man did not supersede the laws of God but was meant to be subordinate to the laws of God. The problem lies in the authority of government to mandate.

This power to mandate has an effect on those that occupy the seats of governments. And whether we want it or not it is this power to mandate that leads to a corrupt government. And there is no one in government nor any form of government that is immune to this corruption. Monopoly power and authority to govern assures us of this. Political ideology is the mask that politicians use to hide their corrupt hearts and minds.

And it is from behind this mask of political ideology that politicians can corrupt the hearts and minds of the people, even a people who think that they are protected by the words of a constitution.
The easiest way to corrupt the hearts and minds of a people is to create an interpretation of their constitution that appears to be accordance to the intent of the writers of that constitution so as to allow change in the authority and powers of that government or, as in our case, governments.

This is why it is so important to understand the intent of the writers of that constitution and the limitations placed upon government. History is the best determinant of original intent. For if a people strays from the original intent then history will have a record of it. That is why history is such an important subject in school for without it constitutions are inevitably corrupted by those who seek to change it in order to gain unauthorized power.”

I just nodded and said, “I know, grandpa, but studying history in school is not as much fun as it is when you and I study it to learn what our founding fathers intended.”

Categories: Education, Ethics and Morality, Politics | Tags: , , , , | 6 Comments

Post navigation

6 thoughts on “history, its value to a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

  1. BB-Idaho

    With reference to “While I cannot prove it I’d say it could easily be assumed that they knew of and accepted the principle that the king ruled by divine right..” that assumption
    is a good one. Of the ‘founders’ 28 of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention were Anglican with a smattering of Prebyterian, Congregational, Catholic etc. Some
    references indicate church-going was less among the common folk, 8-12%. Of
    the 60,000 ‘tories’ who stuck with ‘King and Country’ and left either under pressure or their own accord, most were also Anglican..including many church pasters. The pressures of ‘political correctness’ from both current sides has tended to lessen
    the major impact of the Enlightenment, the secular interest in man and his rights,
    although certainly the writings of Jefferson, Paine and Adams more than hint at
    the anti-clericalism so typical of the Enlightenment. It is certain though, that the
    importance of having God on your country’s side was paramount…and I’m guessing
    Grandpa would observe that both Church & State are collectives, wherein power
    struggles reign and loyalties are sought. Often glossed over, but IMO a factor
    seldom discussed, was the British regulation confining settlement to the east of
    the Alleghenies and banning settlement in Indian lands to the west. Interesting times, and the more one reads, the more complex the threads that wove the drive for
    independence. I’m never sure what US History should be taugnt at what level, but
    history should be factual, based on the evidence an an understanding of the context
    of the time it occured. Hard to do-we (including historians) tend to shape it to our
    modern POVs. Too bad most folks find history boring…probably from their
    school days!

  2. The Griper

    “the major impact of the Enlightenment, the secular interest in man and his rights,”
    “…although certainly the writings of Jefferson, Paine and Adams more than hint at
    the anti-clericalism so typical of the Enlightenment…”

    i’ll have to admit i have often wondered about that interpretation of their intent, BB. for history also teaches us of the power struggle between religions at that time also, especially between the newly founded religions of Protestantism and Catholicism. So, was it merely anti-clericalism or was it a bias against a particular religion and the writers were merely being careful not to antagonize a potential state religion of one of the States for political purpose at that time? this would be especially important between discussions between two men of different religious beliefs.

    i’ll have to admit i haven’t fully made up my mind on that yet even tho i may tend to lean in one direction more than the other. and one big reason for my leaning is the fact that certain States did have a church/State relationship.

  3. BB-Idaho

    For more background, this site
    provides detailed charters, codes and law for the thirteen original colonies through
    statehood (and well beyond in some cases) regarding church-state particulars.
    Interesting, if ya have the time….

  4. The Griper

    a very important and very clear reference, BB. thank you. Wikipedia has a similar entry akin to this one and that was what i was using as reference for my position. from both of our references i think we can be in agreement that the founding fathers had no intentions of creating a secular form of government but one where religion was not within the authority and powers given to the federal government.

    in fact, we can say that it would support the idea that the issue of religion was a domestic issue and well within the idea of State’s rights not federal rights. i think it also lends support to my previous ideas on how the powers of government was separated also. and any thoughts given to the words of the founding fathers has greater credibility when taken in this light.
    would you not agree?

  5. BB-Idaho

    I’d agree…and note that the combined power/hierarchy of religion and state preceded
    the colonies by about…oh 5-6000 years, considering the priest-headman of the tribe,
    the god-king of the Egyptians, Assyrians and Hittites. First sign of trouble was the
    early Jewish/Christian resistance to sacrificing to the Roman emperor/god….

  6. The Griper

    on that we are in total agreement, my friend, on this issue. and with this agreement i think we both can say that it puts you and me on the outside of the mainstream of politics. lol how does it feel?

    and speaking of sacrifice we cannot leave out the fact of sacrificing the one beloved minority class of society, women (virgins), prior to that either by this combined power, to appease the gods.

    the only problem with this agreement is that it leaves us to wonder when this concept of a secular government first began and why it was promoted? it could not have begun until after the fourteenth amendment was passed and fully implimented as originally intended.

    it seems we were just given our homework, BB. history class dismissed. lol

Be respecful or your comment will be deleted. Also know that Alinsky tactics do not phase me

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: