The Rights of
the Colonists
_______
By
SAMUEL ADAMS.
_________
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE OF CORRESPONDENCE
TO THE BOSTON TOWN MEETING
NOV 20, 1772
--------------------
Presented by
The Educational Institute
Of Governmental Studies
With notes and emphasis
By
Rex Ruth
Volume III
1
Introduction
“Let us now unite like one band of brothers in the noblest cause, look to Heaven
for assistance, and HE who made us free will crown our labors with success.”
An American, Boston Gazette, Nov. 2, 1772
The work presented here is the third of a three part trilogy. It is a
pamphlet entitled “The Rights of the Colonists.” written by Samuel
Adams, dated November 20, 1772 and it demonstrates how much the
founding fathers of our republic during the founding and
revolutionary era were influenced by the 17th and 18th Century writers
such as Locke, De Puffendorf, Montesquieu, Sidney, Blackstone and
others. He demonstrates here his familiarity with their works for he
uses Locke’s “Letters of Toleration” his treatise on “Civil
Government”; William Blackstone’s “Commentaries” as well as other
works. In section II of his pamphlet when he wrote “As the first
natural fundamental law also, which is to govern even the legislative
power itself, is the preservation of the society.”, Samuel Adams was
using the same argument James Otis had used in his 1764 pamphlet
entitled “The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved” and
Otis himself also used Locke in his arguments when he used the term
“Salus populi suprema lex esto” “let the good of the people be the
supreme law of the land.”
Our fathers of the founders and revolutionary era were avid readers of
profound works and understood the concept of “The Law of Nature”
as well as the governmental flow of force and power which to them
was best for the people when the flow was bottom up and not top
down. Thus when an issue came up that threatened their birthrights
as British Americans; they fell back on the principles of the writers
mentioned above.
The following pamphlet is a wonderful demonstration as to that truth.
And it raises the question which all Americans need to ask themselves
today and that is “If the principles of self and civil government which
our fathers used worked for them to win their liberties can we today
ignore the same principles to preserve our liberties for ourselves and
our posterity?” No indeed is the answer, we must use them readily;
but before we can us them, we need to understand them as our
fathers did. Yet the goal of this writing is not to define or describe the
law of nature, that has been done on volume one of the trilogy; but the
intention of this work is to merely demonstrate how that law was used
to argue before the courts of law as well as in the courts of public
2
opinion for the just rights of the American Colonist. Although their
arguments prevailed in both courts, because they had a foundation
built upon the eternal and immutable principles of law, they had to
continue the battle all the way to the sanguinary battlefield where
they were willing to pay for their liberties with their very lives. They
became united in thought, definition and purpose, as a band of
brothers, depending upon Him from whom their freedoms flowed.
Historical background
Without
getting into a long history of the establishments of the
American colonies from the beginning on the Island of Roanoke then
Plymouth, and the usurpations of the government of Great Britain; we
shall begin with the British acts of tyranny commencing with the
Navigation act of 1660. Seeing the dates of commencement of these
acts, one can see that the lives of the characters’ upon the stage of
history had already begun; men such as the “brace of Adamses”Samuel and John; Dr. Joseph Warren, James Otis, Benjamin Franklin,
Geo. Washington, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, Hamilton, Lee,
Henry etc. So we are speaking here of men of the revolutionary era
whose lives were all affected in one way or another-mostly negativelyby these laws. Governments do not pass laws or make decrees without
such decrees and laws becoming either a blessing or a curse to those
to whom they apply, and it certainly applied to them negatively in
many ways for such laws violated what Samuel Adams called the
natural rights of life, liberty, and property not only of these men but of
all Americans.
Following is a list of repressive laws which were called Acts of
Tyranny that caused the men of this era to resist such tyranny. The
list dates from 1760 to 1772, the date of the publication of the
following pamphlet:
1. The Navigation act of 1660
2. The Navigation Act of 1663
3. The Woolen act of 1699
4. The Hat act of 1732
5. The Molasses Act of 1733
6. The Iron Act of 1750
7. The Revenue act of 1764
8. The Stamp Act of 1765
9. The Quartering Act of 1765
10. The Declaratory act of 1766
11. The Revenue Act of 1767
12. The Act of Suspending New York Assembly 1767
3
13. The Resolves of Parliament and Address to the King 1769
By 1772, the Americans were basically divided into two parties, one
called the Tories or Loyalists who supported the government and their
repressive measures, and the Whigs (or the Sons of Liberty) who were
against the government’s repressive measures.
st
Lord Hillsborough, 1 Marquess of Downshire (1718-1793) who was
the British Secretary of State for the American Colonies from 17681772 looked at the self governing institutions of the American
colonists with distrust and felt that the colonial government should be
governed by representatives appointed by Great Britain not by local
American legislatures filled by men the people elected. Further, he
believed he could govern the colonies well and fairly, thus taking
away much of what there was to complain about. Although he did not
author any of the obnoxious Royal Instructions that came in the King’s
name, he was a servant of the crown, therefore he felt it his duty to
force the colonists into submission to them.
Following one of these Royal Instructions, Lord Hillsborough directed
that the salaries of all local judges and the subordinate officers of the
courts should all be paid by the crown and not the local legislatures.
Governor Hutchinson of the Massachusetts Colony not only agreed,
but absolved himself from the local legislature and took his
compensation from the crown. By doing so, the loyalty of the local
government-especially the enactment of law and the enforcement of
it- made the judges, sheriffs as well as others subordinate to the King
and the British Government, and not the local legislature, effectively
taking away from the American people the blessing of self
governance.
As an example, it would be as if our present
administration was to make a decree that all of the state governors
and judges as well as the police and National Guard were to be placed
under the authority of the President and not the American States thus
making the United States Constitution null and void and placing a
police state in its stead! The ancient institutions and customs based
upon the Christian idea of man and government used by their British
fathers from the time of Alfred the Great through Edward the
Confessor and to Magna Charta were cherished institution and the
colonists were not simply going to give them up. They felt that these
institutions were the protectorate of the people of British America’s
rights and liberties.
Samuel Adams used these wanton violations against local selfgovernment and American rights, to help heal old wounds caused by
jealousies and disagreements between the patriots, he also convinced
them that a violation against one is a violation against all; thus he
4
fired up their hearts and united them all in one cause as one people.
He said in a letter to Elbridge Gerry:
“This country must shake off its intolerable burdens at all events;
every day strengthens our oppressors, and weakens us. If each town
would declare its sense of these matters, I am persuaded our enemies
would not have it in their power to divide us…I wish we could rouse
the continent.” ‘Letter to Elbridge Gerry, Oct 27 1772” Frothingham
‘The Rise of the Republic’ p.266
Reader, as you read the following text, imagine yourself as an
American Colonist in 1772 and Adams is addressing the issues we
face today with our daily growing federal government, our higher
taxes that were recently passed without our consent; think of recently
passed health care as The Stamp Act of 1765, or an agenda 21 as
“The Act of Suspending New York Assembly 1767”, and you will
understand the importance of the arguments our fathers used and
why we must use them today.
The understanding of the argument based upon “The Law of Nature”
or the “Revealed Law” can and must be used today, for they stand on
the immutable and irrevocable eternal laws of God and there is no
defense against them. Read now, then consider, and ponder what
results we could have if these arguments were once again the basis of
our arguments to preserve what has been gained for us.
5
1. The Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men
Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right
to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property together with the right
to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are
evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of selfpreservation, commonly called the first law of nature.
According to Mr. Adams, the right to life, liberty and property is a natural right given to
man by his Creator, and the preservation of this natural right, is called the first law of
nature. In other words, men have a natural right to defend what has been freely given
them at birth. This did not only mean the British people, or even just Americans, but all
men.
All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they
please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to
leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.
This is the principle they used in justifying their separation with Great Britain and the
principle is enshrined in our Declaration of Independence.
When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they
have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such
conditions and previous limitations as from an equitable original
compact.
This was considered radical then-not to mention treasonous, and it may still be now for if
one today says “what is not given to government by he U.S. Constitution remains with the
people, such a person could be branded a ‘right wing radical’ when indeed the so called
radical is one who wishes to preserve the rights of all men, while the name caller is
wishing for the rights and liberties of only a few for the sake of a few in the name of the
many! So later on in history, one will judge which is right.
Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of
social compact, necessarily ceded, remains. All positive and civil laws
should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and
equity.
What we do not give up remains ours!
As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary,
every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right
peaceably and quietly worship God according to the dictates of his
conscience.
In a state of reason, it is impossible for a society to say they have civil liberty, while yet
oppressing someone who tries to worship freely as his conscience dictates. Civil liberty
without religious liberty is not true liberty, but only a form thereof.
6
“Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty,” in matters
spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by
the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the
laws of nations and all well grounded municipal laws, which must
have their foundation in the former.
Adams is here appealing to God and his laws for in them are the great protector of men’s
liberties. Also, when Adams used the phrase God and nature, he was not equating them
as equal, for it was understood that God created nature with certain laws called ‘natural
laws’ and those laws cannot be broken; thus he is saying ‘God and the laws he placed in
nature to govern us.’ This falls in line with the writings of Montesquieu who writes in his
celebrated “The Spirit of the Laws” when he wrote:
“God is related to the universe, as Creator, and Preserver; the
laws by which He created all things are those by which He
preserves them. He acts according to these rules, because he
knows them; He knows them, because he made them; and He
made them, because they are in relation to His wisdom and
power.” Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of the Laws”, Colonial Press
1900;
Taken from “Verna M. Hall; The Christian History of the
Constitution of the United States”; p.134” pub. by “The
Foundation for Christian Education”
In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions
thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever
practiced, and both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind.
And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of
toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil
society, is the chief characteristical mark of the church. Insomuch
that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of
contradiction on any soled ground, that such toleration ought to be
extended to all whose doctrines that are not subversive to society.
The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws
are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines
subversive to civil government under which they live.
At the time of this writing, the colonists were very concerned about the establishment of
the Catholic Church on this continent for their history is full of oppression, wars,
political intrigues in their over throwing of established dominions and unmerciful
tyrannical laws both civil and religious. Therefore Mr. Adams addresses this issue in the
manner in which he does. It is interesting to note that there exists in the world today a
major religion which does not practice toleration for their religion is meant to convert
through persuasion, but if the hearers do not convert by choice, they are compelled to do
so by the point of a sword and further resistance means death. Civil and religious
freedom is not tolerated in their home countries, and if their adherents come hither,
which they have and are continuing to do so, they would not bring with them the
7
toleration that we practice in our world, but their intolerance; which if given power,
would overthrow our laws and customs and replace them with their own. If the principles
of the law of nature are not recognized nor practiced in their home countries then why
would they be applied here if given power? They would not!
The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such
doctrines as those, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and
those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides
their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of
government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under
whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism
in politics, imperium in imperio, (a government independent of the general
authorized government) leading to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil
discord, war and bloodshed.
The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or
restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the
best good of the whole.
Note that man is not restrained arbitrarily totally and completely.
In the state of nature, every man is, under God, judge and sole judge
of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into
society, he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and
his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by
taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the
decisions to referees or indifferent arbitrators. (Just because we enter into
society, and have to relinquish some rights, we never relinquish all of them and what we
do not; none has the power under the law of nature to take away.) In the last case,
he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should also be
willing to pay his just quota for the support of government, the law,
and the constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and
impartial judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil,
ecclesiastical, marine or military.
The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on
earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but
only to have the law of nature for his rule. (According to Locke, that would be
‘i.e. the will of God.’)
In the state of nature, men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired
servants for the defense of their lives, liberties and property; and they
should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for
the purpose of common defense, (Not arbitrary rule by decree or fiat
or any coercive measures) and those who hold the reigns of
government have an equitable natural right to an honorable support
from the same principle “the laborer is worth his hire.” But then the
same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their
pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please;
8
by this, instead of being content with the station assigned
them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would
soon become absolute masters, despots and tyrants. (Is it possible
that we would see this in our country today - perpetrated upon the American people by
the very government that American created in 1787 which was to protect the rights and
liberties of the American people rather than oppress them? Could this ever be today’s’
Congress? Let us ask today , who is the servant, and who is the master?) Hence, as a
private man has the right to say what wages he would give in his
private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give
and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs.
And in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the
proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform
their duty.
(In our present situation, it could be argued that while the present administration speaks
of protecting our rights, they are actually taking such rights away.)
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one,
or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their
essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when
the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its
institution, is for the support, protection and defense of those very
rights; the principle of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty,
and Property. If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms
renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of
reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such
renunciation.
The right to freedom being the gift of God
almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and
voluntarily become a slave. As to the first point, it is the grand design of
government to protect the rights of the people, so how can a government take away such
rights or even receive such rights even if such rights were relinquished by some segments
of the population? Even it that were to happen, the government should refuse such a deal
and not allow the people to relinquish such rights. Secondly, neither we Americans nor
any other people have any right under the law of nature to abdicate such rights to any
one person or persons or to make ourselves slaves for to do so would mean that we
voluntarily made not only ourselves slaves, but all the future generations of Americans
who had no say ion the issue.
II
The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
9
“As men we have God as our King and are under the law of
Reason; As Christians we have Jesus the Messiah for our
King and are under the laws revealed by him in the Gospels.”
John Locke; On “The Reasonableness of Christianity”
These may be best understood by reading and carefully
studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the
Christian Church, which are to be found in the written and
clearly promulgated in the New Testament.
If Mr. Locke states “We are under the law revealed by him in the gospels”, and Mr.
Adams says these rights of the colonists can be best understood by studying the great
Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church written in the New Testament, then what
are those laws and how are they defined? Is it possible both Mr. Adams and Mr. Locke
are speaking about the question that was asked of Jesus in the new Testament of the Bible
in the 22nd chapter of Matthew vrs:36-40 which reads:
“Master, what is the greatest commandment? And Jesus said: to love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart, with all thy soul and with all thy mind. This is the first and great
commandment and the second is like unto it, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On
these two commandments, hang all the law and the prophets.’”
Surely it would seem so for the Great Law Giver that Mr. Adams is referring to is Jesus
Christ, the same person Mr. Locke calls King Messiah and what did this King say? Jesus
said that that the greatest commandment was to love God and your neighbor as yourself.
Can one begin to imagine what would happen if all governments enacted laws according
to this law or commandment of God? Is it possible that this is also the “Revealed Law”
which Mr. Blackstone speaks of in his work “The Commentaries”? I believe so for he
wrote ‘This will of the Creator is called the law of nature…The doctrines thus delivered
we call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the Holy
Scriptures.’”. For a further definition, see “The Law of Nature Defined and Asserted” by
Rex Ruth
Further let us examine what Mr. Locke wrote in a letter to the Rev. Richard King, in
Works, 10:31 “ The Christian religion is a revelation from God almighty,
which is contained in the Bible, and so all the knowledge you can have
of it must be derived from thence. ‘What is the best way of
interpreting
Scripture?’
Taking
“interpreting”
to
mean
“understanding”, I think the best way for understanding Scripture…is
to read it assiduously and diligently; and, if it can be, in the original. I
do not mean to read every day some certain number of chapters, as is
usual; but to read it so, as to study and consider, and not leave till you
are satisfied that you have got the true meaning.” “John Locke;
Philosopher of American Liberty” by Mary Elaine Swanson; p.139
It seemed that Mr. Locke venerated the Scriptures and believed its contents, therefore he
used its contents to define what he believed the law of nature and the revealed law was. It
seems he did not separate his “religious beliefs” from his ideas of man and government.
10
By the act of the British Parliament, commonly called the Toleration
Act, every subject in England, except Papists, &c., was restored to,
and re-established in, his natural right to worship God according to
the dictates of his own conscience. And, by the charter of this
Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is, declared as
an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in
the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or
which shall inhibit or be resident within, such Province or Territory.
Magna Charta itself is in substance but a constrained declaration or
proclamation and promulgation in the name of the King, Lords, and
Commons, of the sense the latter had of their original, inherent,
indefeasible natural rights, as also those of free citizens equally
perdurable with the other. That great author, that great jurist, and
even that court writer, Mr. Justice Blackstone, holds that this
recognition was justly obtained of King John, sword in hand. And
peradventure it must be one day, sword in hand, again rescued and
preserved from total destruction and oblivion.
It was obtained sword in hand in 1215 when Magna Charta was written, and it was
obtained sword in hand again during our War for Independence, and it may be yet again
be obtained with sword in hand in some future year. Let us hope not for that would mean
the American people would have been at war with its own government because a usurper
and a tyrant had somehow done the unthinkable in America and had taken hold of the
workings of the entire government and used its great powers to enslave the people.
III The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects.
A commonwealth or state is a body politic, or civil society of men, united together to
promote their mutual safety and prosperity by means of their union. (By consent)
The absolute rights of Englishmen and all freemen, in our out of civil society, are
principally, personal security, personal liberty, and private property.
All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of
God and nature (Which God created) and by the common law of
England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled,
and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all
the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and
privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm.
Among those rights are the following, which no man or body of men,
consistently with their own rights as men and citizens, members of
society, can for themselves give up or take away from others.
It matters not what royal charters or prerogatives my have said or demanded, by the laws
of God i.e the law of nature, men are created free and are entitled to all of the natural
11
inherent rights as men. That is why our fathers used the phrase “We are- therefore we
ought- to be free.”
First, “The first fundamental, positive law of all commonwealths or
states is the legislative power. (and such power must only be given to those who
were elected to be in that position by the people whom they represent in the legislature.)
As the first fundamental natural law, also, which is to govern even the
legislative power itself, is the preservation of the society.”
Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary
power over the lives and fortunes of the people; nor can mortals
assume a prerogative not only too high for men, but for angles, and
therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone. (The only being
worthy of absolute power is God himself, for men are not entitled to it nor does the law of
nature sanction it.)
The legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by
extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that justice is
dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided by
promulgated, standing and known laws, and authorized independent
judges”; that is, independent, as far as possible, of Prince and people.
“There should be one rule of justice for the rich and poor, for the
favorite at court, and the countryman at the plough.”
The legislature cannot just simply rule by decree or by arbitrary law even if such
legislature has been duly elected by the people. Just because the people elected the
legislature that does not mean the people sanctioned them to rule contrary to the law of
nature especially if such laws are based upon favoritism so they could assist to keep such
a legislature in power in perpetuity. All men are created equal, and thus all men are
protected by the law for justice is not for a favored few. Do we see our legislature trying
to “rule” us instead of “govern” us and will we one day see a legislature give an
American President the title of “President for life”?
Thirdly, The power cannot justly take from any man part of his
property, without his consent in person or by his representative.
And what is that property. First conscience – then freedom of religion, the ability to keep
and bear arms to defend oneself, freedom of press to inform and to make expression of
speech, freedom of assembly and such.
These are some of the first principles of natural law and justice, and
the great barriers of all free states and of the British Constitution in
particular. It is utterly irreconcilable to these principles and to many
other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense, and
reason that a British House of Commons should have a right at
pleasure to give and grant the property of the colonists.
No government has the right to give or take at pleasure ANY thing that does not belong to
them and give it to others outside of law sanctioned by the people, for that is a way for
12
the government to create an army of “friends” to the government loyal to it rather than
to the people for the good of the people; but is it possible that the people can sanction
what is in itself against the law of nature?
(That the Colonists are well entitled to all the essential rights,
liberties, and privileges of men and freemen born in Britain is
manifest not only from the Colony charters in general, but acts of the
th
British Parliament.)The statute of the 13 of Geo.2, c.7, naturalizes
even foreigners after seven years’ residence. The words of the
Massachusetts charter are these: “And further, our will and pleasure
is, and we do hereby for us, our heirs, and successors, grant,
establish, and ordain, that all and every of the subjects of us, our
heirs, and successors, which shall go to, and inhabit within our said
Province or Territory, and every of their children, which shall happen
to be born there or on the seas going thither or returning from
thence, shall have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and
natural subjects within any of the dominions of us, our heirs, and
successors, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever, as
if they and every one of them were born within this our realm of
England.”
Now what liberty can there be where property can be taken away
without consent? (There can be none, for if property can be taken away without
consent, what else can be taken away in like manner. One right taken away without
consent will lead to all rights taken away without consent.) Can it be said with any
color of truth and justice, that this continent of three thousand miles
in length, and a breadth as yet unexplored, in which, however, it is
supposed there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote, or
influence in the British Parliament? Have they all together have any
more weight or power to return a single member to that House of
Commons who have not inadvertently, but deliberately, assumed
power to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties, than to
choose an Emperor of China? (Mr. Adams is here arguing the law of nature
which is governed by the law of reason) Had the Colonists a right to return
members to the British Parliament, it would only be hurtful; as, from
their local situation and circumstances, it is impossible that they
should ever be truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants’
of this country, in all probability, in a few years, will be more
numerous than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is
absurdly expected by the promoters of the present measures that
these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy, while
their property shall be disposed of by a House of Common sat three
thousand miles’ distance from them, and who cannot be supposed to
have the least care or concern for their real interest; who have not
only natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed
against it, as every burden they lay on the Colonists is so much saved
or gained to themselves.
13
Reader, keep in mind that some of your countrymen argue for globalism and the power of
a world governing body to rule all nations in a dream world without boarders. Therefore
even though Mr. Adams may not have even conceived such a scenario, he argues here
against it in principle for also keep in mind England ruled a good portion of the world
and made laws for the inhabitants of all of its dominions. Could such arguments be used
again today?
Hitherto, many of the Colonists have been free from quiet rents; but if
the breath of the British House of Commons can originate an act for
taking away all our money, or lands will go next, or be subject to rack
rents from haughty and relentless landlords, who will ride at ease,
while we are trodden in the dirt. The Colonists have been branded
with the odious names of traitors, and rebels only for complaining of
their grievances. How long such treatment will or ought to be born, is
submitted.
Oppressive governments are known to reward those who support it with lands and
holdings which the government has taken away from their rightful owners without their
consent so that the rewarded will continue their support. This crony favoritism has been
practiced the world over during ageless times from the most so called “civilized” nations
to the most barbaric ones who live in underdeveloped societies. The end result, however,
is always the same and that is tyranny, violence and civil war. The most recent of such
practice in our lifetime is the example of the former Soviet Union and the repressive
regimes of the Middle East. An oppressed people will stand such oppression until they
come to the point where death is better than slavery.
14
CONCLUSION
Since before the writing of Mr. Adam’s celebrated pamphlet in 1772,
we as individuals, as a people, and then as a nation have had to
defend ourselves from the ravages of despotism and repression from
one generation to the next, either at home or abroad. We have stood
on the principles of the law of nature and the revealed law; we
answered the call of liberty from that cold April morning in 1775 at
Lexington Green to the boiling deserts of Afghanistan in 2012. In
defense of these principles more American blood has been shed all
over our globe than that of any other nation in the world, certainly
more than that of Iran, Russia, China, North Korea etc. We have
fought, we have bled and we have died not only for our own liberty
but for the liberty of others, and for the most part, it seems we have
done so for an ungrateful world. Yet mankind is better off because the
world has been watered by the blood and treasure of our nation and
our people. Can one even begin to imagine what the world would look
like today if it were not for America- Gods gift to mankind?
We Americans today face the same commitment as did other
generations to step up to the call and defend of our natural birthrights
of liberty, freedom and justice; and once again the fate of all mankind
is in the hands of…we Americans…of we Yankees, for the same God
who gave us the law of nature and the revealed law has providentially
placed in our hands for safe keeping the last word in human political
institutions which is the republican form of government. To defend it
is our duty, it is our call; our blessed ordination for this is our cross.
Let us follow the example of Mr. S. Adams and stand boldly upon the
natural rights and liberties of freedom as Americans one, and
Americans all; freedoms given to us by our Creator who was the God
of Mr. Locke, Mr. Blackstone, Mr. Adams and other great American
statesmen!
Some say America is waning and our enemies have presumed us dead,
but we shall never die, for no matter what, the burning ember of
freedom is in the hearts and minds of our people and it shall never be
put out. It is an eternal flame placed within us by our greatest
benefactor who is the true King of America not a Congress or a
President; for it is He –not men-who has given us that great blessing
of heaven which is our natural rights as men, as Christians and as
citizens- citizens not of the world, but of the United States of America.
Rex Ruth
15
Founder “Educational Institute of Governmental Studies” (EIGS)
16