After an absence from this blog, and from my own meme “Founding Father’s Quote Friday,” I now resume my pen typewriter. I also apologize (do I do that more than I blog, I wonder?) to my readers and to FFQF participants. My absence was the result of necessity.

Today, we pose the question “Does one size fit all?” Meaning, “Is one form of government appropriate to all kinds of peoples, nations, societies, cultures, and so forth?” It seems ridiculous at first to think so, because all people are different; but it seems that it is viewed as unpatriotic these days to say that the United States Constitution, or ‘democracy,’ is not going to work for all people.

Let’s see what Founder Alexander Hamilton had to say about this:

… I hold, with Montesquieu, that a government must be fitted to a nation as much as a coat to and individual; and consequently, what may be good at Philadelphia [the unofficial United States capitol at the time], may be bad at Paris, and ridiculous at Petersburg [then capitol of Russia].
To Marquis de Lafayette, January 6th, 1801

We are told that all people have an inner desire for freedom (which is true), and that therefore all people should experience political freedom no matter what their beliefs, culture, or moral standards.

While this is a nice sentiment, and one would naturally hope that this could be realized, it is a sad impossibility. Only those who are capable of governing themselves in such a way that is consistent with the order, peace, and protection of society, can sustain any form of popular government.

I will no doubt be accused of bigotry by saying this, but it is truth nonetheless. Only the moral standards of God, who created man, are fit to govern man sufficiently and properly. God has made it clear that His word has been revealed to us in the form of the Holy Scriptures. If you have any doubts about this, I would suggest that you research the facts, internal and external. Some of the greatest internal evidences that have convinced me personally of the Scriptures’ superhuman origin are the scientific and medical facts which were hidden within the passages of the Bible, some of which have been discovered only during this past century. Ray Comfort has listed these facts in his book Scientific Facts in the Bible, available at Amazon.com. Another evidence is the Bible codes. Good reads on this subject include Dr. Chuck Missler’s The Cosmic Codes, and W. E. Filmer’s book God Counts. There are many other evidences of the Bible’s accuracy and supernatural origin, but these two categories of evidence are totally mind-blowing.

Free government has worked in America as long as America has respected and observed those standards. When she departed, she departed from her origins of civic freedom as well. Now, we need politicians to look out for us, and protect us from ourselves. Such is the price a nation pays for deserting its own good by deserting God’s law.

Everyone knows the famous saying by Ben Franklin, that the only things that are certain in life are death and taxes. Which one is worse? Heh.

(Hat tip: Patriot Humor)

My FFQF today comes from an email I recently received from Wallbuilders, David Barton’s group. As usual, his stuff is choc-full of quotations from the Founding Fathers. The email and the quotations are so good, I would like to share it all with my readers today. “JOIN A TEA PARTY TODAY!”

Next week there will be thousands of TEA parties (Taxed Enough Already) across the nation. In a relatively short period of time, we have seen an explosive increase in government spending and national debt.

Previous generations avoided these unhealthy practices, being guided by wise political leaders who understood the blessings of frugality and the dangers of debt.

For example, Alexander Hamilton — America’s first Secretary of the Treasury and also a signer of the Constitution — wisely declared:

Allow a government to decline paying its debts and you overthrow all public morality — you unhinge all the principles that preserve the limits of free constitutions.

Nothing can more affect national prosperity than a constant and systematic attention to extinguish the present debt and to avoid as much as possibly the incurring of any new debt.

George Washington similarly warned:

Avoid occasions of expense… and avoid likewise the accumulation of debt not only by shunning occasions of expense but by vigorous exertions to discharge the debts, not throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.

Perhaps no Founding Father was as forthright on this topic as Thomas Jefferson:

If the debt should be swelled to a formidable size, we shall be committed to the career of debt, corruption, and rottenness. . . . The discharge of the debt, therefore, is vital to the destinies of our government.

The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale. I. . . place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared.

Jefferson even wisely foresaw where America generally finds itself today:

I am not among those who fear the people… [A]nd to preserve their independence we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy [frugality] and liberty, or profusion [excess spending] and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, our people must come to labor sixteen hours in twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these hours to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread. The [forerunner] of this is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

Millions of citizens, following the example of America’s early residents, have finally decided to draw a line and raise their voice against the government’s exorbitant spending and exploding debt. On April 15, citizens at more than 1,000 locations across the country will be sponsoring TEA parties.

If you want to participate with your fellow citizens, go to http://www.teapartyday.com/ to find a location near you.

[*] You may notice that Hamilton is quoted here as advocating the elimination, and not the accumulation, of public debt here. Indeed, there are many, many such statement throughout Hamilton’s writings. This goes directly against what we have been taught for decades in our history textbooks, and what many people are being led to believe through Thomas DiLorenzo’s writings on Hamilton.

I have (finally) posted the second installment of my critical examination of DiLorenzo’s claims, here.

Today we will look at what Alexander Hamilton had to say about the self-destructive weaknesses of republics. In a day and age where both extremes of unitary government and total democracy are pitted against each other in our nation, his words need to be heard and understood.

Every republic at all times has its Catalines and its Caesars. Men of this stamp, while in their hearts they scoff at the principles of liberty, while in their real characters they are arbitrary, persecuting, and intolerant, and despotic, are in all their harangues and professions the most zealous, nay, if they are to be believed, the only friends to liberty.

“The Vindication No. I” May-August 1792

In courts, sycophants flatter the errors and prejudices of the prince; in republics sycophants flatter the errors and prejudices of the people. In both, honest and independent men are frequently obliged to tell unpalatable truths, which are well or ill received according to the virtue and good sense of those to whom they are addressed.

“Philo Camillus No. 3″ August 12, 1795

People may shake their heads in astonishment, as these foretold patterns have been manifestly evident in our own political and social history. Others may marvel at how well our Founders described “the future” so precisely. The truth is that they gained their insight and their understanding through studying the history of republics, or those governments which had the seed of some form of “popular government.”

In other words, what is happening — or, what has been happening — to America is nothing new in the annuls of great human civilizations. Nay, we are merely another link in the long chain of examples of nations refusing to learn the lesson from history — that man is an inherently corrupted being, with knowledge of right and wrong, but a perpetual inclination for wrong.

No matter what extreme you slide toward, man’s age-old dream of a perfect “Utopia” will never come true without a fundamental change in mankind itself. That change can only be wrought about by God Himself, through the power of the new covenant.

But since mankind doesn’t want to acknowledge God’s right to do that, he has chosen to ignore God, and seek answers in himself. Hence, the problem remains, and the terrible cycle is repeated once more. Thank God there is a day when all of that will come to an end. God will not put up with the iniquity of man forever; He will come and establish His own government to rule in justice.

Today I am thrilled to announce that we have a new participant in Founding Father’s Quote Friday. MikeB from Florida, author of two great history blogs (Great Lives in History and Citrus Country Social Studies) has written his first FFQF post. Go here to check it out!

Beginning with this month, I have decided to stop issuing monthly themes for the Founding Fathers’ Quote Friday meme. My reason for this is simply, it will make it easier for bloggers to participate, and encourage other bloggers to become participants (hopefully). There is the possibility that inspiration will strike me and I will issue a certain theme accordingly; however, I don’t plan on regularly issuing themes.

Today, I would like to quote from one of my most favorite Founders — George Washington. I think that he is, without dispute, the greatest of them all. The other Founders had their fine qualities, and I think that most all of them were men of worthy character, but they all knew that Washington surpassed them in virtue. Too bad our countrymen do not judge public personages by the same measure anymore.

One of Washington’s amazing qualities, which shone through especially during his turbulent presidency, was his astounding ability to stay aloof of party disputes. He was not “undecided,” so to speak; in principle, he was a staunch Federalist. However, he did not allow himself as a personal individual to be defined by political parties and factions. And because he won the respect and admiration of all, most everyone (save the handful of rascals who could not have cared less about principle) respected that in Washington.

So when Washington prepared to exit the Presidency, and public life forever, he prepared an address to encourage and warn his countrymen. He prepared this chiefly with the help of Alexander Hamilton, who had been Washington’s right-hand-man since the War for Independence. Hamilton, although the virtual founder of the Federalist Party and its outspoken leader, has been considered to be an unwavering partisan; but his record shows that he agreed Washington that political battles should be defined by core principles, not party lines.

Here are the words of Washington to our nation:

Let me now … warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
(emphasis added)

Does this sound familiar to anybody?

People, when we stop putting our trust in God, we automatically put our trust in man. In a nation such as ours, with a “popular government,” where the people get involved in their political system, if there is not a general trust in God, and a living conviction that God’s principles ought to be followed, then trust will be put in a political figure. Since not all people agree in everything, the people will be divided into their respective factions, and trust in the leader of their faction to “save” them.

I don’t care if that leader says he’s a Christian, a conservative, or pro-life. Even if he is all those things in principle, we ought not to put our trust in him. That is what we did with George W. Bush, and with several presidents before him. Of course, it turned out that he was neither of those things, and our liberties were wrecked in the process. He was a prime example of a person who wears the name-brands of all the good things, but was just a partisan, and not guided by principle.

We can’t afford to make that mistake again.

I said it once, and I’ll say it again (although you are all probably tired of hearing it): our theme for this week has sounded more or less like an elegy to the late great Bill of Rights. Our Founders were aware that, in the usual course of history, governments would look out more and more for their own self-interest than for their responsibility: to protect the people’s rights and to protect the order of society. As an extra safeguard, the Founders instituted the Second Amendment to the Constitution:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That means, that we the people (who were the meat and muscle of militia in the Founders’ days) have the right to possess our own private arms, for our own protection, for the protection of our families, properties, and communities, and of course, for the protection of our other civil liberties. Hence, when the government and our own laws cease to protect our rights, and instead become a threat to them, we have a right and responsibility to protect them by force.

“[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.”

Richard Henry Lee, Letters from the Federal Farmer, 1788

“[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, – who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”

George Mason, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 14 June 1778

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”

Patrick Henry, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, 5 June 1778

Before I leave off here, I would like to conclude today’s post and this month’s theme with a note of caution. I have already discussed this in a previous post, but I think that it is worth repeating; many seem to have the fervor to take back liberty, by force if necessary, but it is hardly tempered by knowledge, by wisdom, or by virtue. The Scriptures teach that such uninformed, untempered zeal is dangerous (see, for example, Proverbs 19:2).

We tend to romanticize our American Revolution, and to romanticize revolutions in general. War, even for a good and just cause, is never good and many times, one rarely finds justice observed. War brings out the worst in human nature, and revolution and revolt is one of those kinds of war that doubles the bad effects. Why? Because revolutions are inherently the pulling down of authorities, which, although despotic, once held society together, and served as a restraining force upon the evil passions of men. Once that is removed, the more ambitious, the more facetious, the more active, and the more radical men begin to control the tide of revolution. They assume the role of demagogues, and eventually, they establish a new despotic order over the chaos they helped to create.

I regret to say that thanks to our moral state, it is impossible to climb backwards up the slope, back to liberty and law. Revolt will only plummet us to the bottom more quickly. Think about it. If the people of this country got up in armed conflict with the federal government, the United Nations (or some other armed agency interested in our conquest — there are too many to list here!) would step in, and bring “peace and order” to the chaos. Having been divided, we shall be conquered, and not by our own countrymen.

Consider this also. Our federal government is not at the top of the despotic conspiratorial ladder. They have just been bought and paid for, and they are very happy to sell their consciences, their country, and their souls for the money and the power that the globalist powers have offered them. We the people have been the stupid herds that just went along with it, and became part of the bargain. And now we are on our way to the slaughter, along with our American politician-herders who led us here. If we could not sustain a free country when it was easy — when we could have protected our rights by peaceful means — than we shall not be able to put it back and rebuild it if things get hard — when we catapult ourselves into revolt, and must feel a greater blow-back for our more difficult decisions.

I suppose I wasn’t able to end this so much on a cheery note. Alexander Hamilton will have to do that for me:

The triumphs of vice are no new thing under the sun, and I fear, till the millennium comes, in spite of all our boasted light and purification, hypocrisy and treachery will continue to be the most successful commodities in the political market.

Letter to Richard Harrison, 1793

For the past several weeks, I and those participating in this month’s Founding Fathers’ Quote Friday meme, have been dealing with the subject of the (late great) Bill of Rights. We have been approaching that subject from the angle that the reason for its demise has simply been the ignorance and complacency of the people. My friend Jean has just posted about the importance for people to know their rights, and not to be intimidated by the government. My friend Cato has also posed the suggestion that in stead of the Pledge of Allegiance schoolchildren and public officials ought to recite the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights at the beginning of each workday. Also, my friend Jon-Paul who joined our meme some time back, pointed out that many people think they have certain rights guaranteed by the law (such as the right not to be offended, the right to “express themselves”, etc.), but are ignorant of our real rights.

Because the people are ignorant (government-controlled schools are not going to impress upon its students the value of their rights, the protection that the laws of the land give them from their government, and their solemn and sacred duty to defend their laws and their rights), many of those who have assumed government office on the local, state, and federal level are also shamefully ignorant. Polls again and again show (I suppose I don’t need to mention the status-quo policies of the government for decades, do I?) how ignorant and/or indifferent our public officials are of our laws, of their limits, and their duties.

But how many people know? And in comparison to that amount, how many people care? Our culture is a pleasure-seeking one, by and large. And each passing generation seems to be more and more entertainment-oriented. Of course, much of our entertainment is mindless drivel, or downright filthy. I’m appalled at some of the things our culture seems to tolerate as “funny” or “entertaining.”

Should we be surprised that in a culture filled with frivolity and impurity that our national IQ goes down considerably? That the conscience of our culture has been seared? That we are habitually complacent about the things that matter? We are dumbed and numbed, and we have willingly accepted this condition of slavery that has been gradually tightening its grip on our lives, for temporal pleasure.

Here is what Founding Father Alexander Hamilton had to say about that.

Mental debasement is the greatest misfortune that can befall a people. The most pernicious of conquests which a state can experience is a conquest over that elevated sense of its own rights, which inspires a due sensibility to insult and injury, over that virtuous pride of character which prefers any peril or sacrifice to a final submission to oppression, and which regards national ignominy as the greatest of national calamities. The nation, which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a Master and deserves one.

“The Warning No. III” New York, February 21, 1797 (emphasis original)

Ouch. I guess our infatuation with celebrities and sports and entertainment hasn’t been so worth it after all.

It seems that our theme for this week has sounded a bit more like an elegy to the Bill of Rights, which, for all practical purposes, are dead. What now? Well, let us look and see where we have fallen. We will start by looking at the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Thanks to radical revisionism and misinterpretation of this amendment, the version which is now observed and practiced reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of any religion except that of humanism, nor prohibiting the free expression thereof, no matter how unreasonable, injurious, or obscene. Neither the Congress, nor the President, nor the courts, nor the states, nor the people, may in any way sanction or express the Christian religion exclusively — this would contradict the aforesaid establishment of the state-sanctioned religious establishment of humanism.
The people may speak and picket and petition, but the government has the right to ignore and silence them from time to time as it shall deem proper.

Sounds nasty, doesn’t it? I regret to say that this is largely our fault. One the one hand, you had ordinary citizens believing with the courts and the historical revisionists that the First Amendment was basically meant to guarantee individual freedom of expression, and to protect licentious individuals from even having to think about Christianity, lest they get offended. We allowed ourselves to be brainwashed by the government’s courts, government-owned major media outlets, and government-owned schools that Christians were just bigoted control-freaks who wanted to force their absurd beliefs on everybody else.

Oh, but we enjoyed our “freedom” from God for a while, didn’t we? While our kids were shooting each other and committing violent and obscene crimes, while families and marriages fell to pieces, while corruption within our government quadrupled, while every generation was sent to fight and die overseas in the politicians’ wars, and while thousands of unborn children, unwanted infants, and unwanted elderly people were put to death each day in our own land. What paradise! What a nation to be proud of! Wasn’t it worth it??? JUST SO LONG AS WE HAD THE RIGHT NOT TO THINK ABOUT GOD!! What? Bailout??? EVIL GOVERNMENT!! Don’t you dare touch my wallet!

Here is the price we’ve paid. Two hundred years have gone by, and yet another nation has refused to learn the lesson from history: that the nation that willfully forgets God, will eat the fruit of its own folly and destruction.

At least we had an honorable bunch of fellows who were willing to learn that lesson, and pass the warning to their descendants:

There is not a single instance in history in which civil liberty was lost and religious liberty preserved entire.Reverend John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration of Independence

Would you put your religion in the power of any set of men living? Remember civil and religious liberty always go together: if the foundation of one be sapped, the other will fall of course.

Alexander Hamilton

The last time we touched on Hamilton’s humor, he borrowed it from his friend James McHenry. Today, we will see what credit his own words do to his own wit.

While it was not his regular habit to tell jokes, he never could resist poking fun when he could. While General Washington’s aide-de-camp, he was sent to arrange a prisoner exchange with the British. Although he thought them civil, he found them terribly … well, lets see what he says:

Our interview is attended with a great deal of sociability and good humour; but I begin notwithstanding to be tired of our British friends. They do their best to be agreeable and are particularly civil to me — but after all, they are a compound of grimace and jargon; and out of a certain fashionable routine are as dull and empty as any Gentleman need be. … You must not think me prejudiced, for the picture is a true one.

To Elizabeth Schuyler, March 17, 1780

Perhaps the movies of the long-nosed pompous British aristocrats of the colonial period are not too far from the truth!

If I may also add another amusing anecdote that made people chuckle back then, sometimes, the joke was on Hamilton.

After Hamilton’s heroic capture of Redoubt 10 at Yorktown on the night of October 14, 1781, he was probably still feeling a bit cocky and proud of his soldierly exploit. He eagerly anticipating the successful calumniation of the Revolutionary struggle, and rejoiced in the fact that he had played a crucial part in the play of events toward final victory.

In the height of such feelings, to which he was occasionally prone, he often needed to be reminded of things like, practical safety on the battlefield. Last night’s battle may have been successfully concluded, but the war still raged around them. The fighting was not over yet.

So the next morning, Hamilton, Major-General Henry Knox (who commanded the American artillery), and the Corps of the Sappers and Miners were busy repairing the British redoubts they had taken into a suitable defense position. One of the soldiers, a man by the name of Aenas Monson, of New Haven, Connecticut, was standing near the two men, when the following event transpired:

The blinds mentioned in the story were made of hogsheads and pipes filled with sand — they were placed there by the British, for they had occupied the redoubt, and had been driven from it by storm by the Americans.

Dr. Monson was himself behind those blinds, and within two or three paces of Hamilton and Knox. With Hamilton, Knox, and others, there were present in that redoubt four hundred American troops — the French troops were in another redoubt. A general order had been given, that when a shell was seen, they might cry out a a shell — but not to cry a shot, when a shot was seen. The reason of this distinction was, that a shell might be avoided, but to cry a shot would only make confusion, and do no good.

This order was just then discussed, Col. Hamilton remarking that it seemed to him unsoldier-like to halloo a shell, while Knox contended the contrary, and that the order was wisely given by Gen. Washington, who cared for the life of the men. The argument, thus stated, was progressed with a slight degree of warmth, when suddenly spat! spat! two shells fell and struck within the redoubt. Instantly the cry broke out on all side, “a shell! a shell!” and such a scrambling and jumping to reach the blinds and get behind them for defence [sic].

Knox and Hamilton were united in action, however differing in word, for both got behind the blinds, and Hamilton to be yet more secure, held on behind Knox, (Knox being a very large man and Hamilton a small man.) Upon this Knox struggled to throw Hamilton off, and in the effort himself (Knox) rolled over and threw Hamilton off toward the shells. Hamilton however scrabbled back again behind the blinds. All this was done rapidly, for in two minutes the shells burst, and threw their deadly missiles in all directions. It was now safe and soldier-like to stand out. “Now,” says Knox, “now what do you think, Mr. Hamilton, about crying shell– but let me tell you not to make a breastwork of me again.”

Doctor Monson added that on looking around and finding not a man hurt out of the more than 400, Knox exclaimed, “it is a miracle!”

The Virginia Historical Register and Literary Companion, by William Maxwell, Virginia Historical Society (pp. 229-230)

Over the past several months, we have cracked open the dusty tomes of the Founding Fathers’ writings, and searched for their wise advice on such subjects as liberty, virtue, and the means of their support. These subjects have lead us to reflect, often with great heaviness, on our nation’s failings, and to the current situation to which it has brought us. These reflections, and often our forebodings, can make us gloomy and sad. And at this time of year, when the weather (especially here in Upstate New York) cannot make up its mind whether to be warm or cold, our moods can take a rather gloomy downturn. So, I’ve decided that for this month, the theme ought to draw out laughter, not furrowed brows.

Now, if you ever got the impression, looking at the solemn faces of the Founding Fathers’ portraits that hung in your schoolroom (ah, this would only apply to those of you who went to public school many years ago), that they were dull fuddy-duddies with grimaced faces and powdered wigs, who never laughed, think again! Quite some characters were our Founding Fathers, and even the most solemn and somber of them (like George Washington) knew how to laugh at their own jokes — which is why the Founders and I have so much in common!

As I intend to illustrate this month, even the most unlikely of them were quite funny at times. The title of my post here should have indicated that — you probably never thought of Alexander Hamilton and James McHenry being funny now, did you? Keep reading — this isn’t April Fools Day!

When both of these men, later to become Framers and signers of the US Constitution, were serving side-by-side during the Revolutionary War as aide-de-camps to General Washington, they toiled day and night at their desks, managing correspondence, espionage, and other important paperwork. Young and energetic men like them often got restless, and Hamilton made it clear to everyone that he disliked his occupation (although he put his absolute best into it, as he did in everything), though he was Washington’s favorite aide-de-camp.

So even though the work was dull and dreary, they found time to amuse themselves. Hamilton wrote in a letter to his best friend, Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens (son of Henry Laurens, president of the Continental Congress; a fellow aide-de-camp) of their amusements at Headquarters:

Harrison, McHenry, Gibbs put in mind of the place you have in their hearts. Mc.Henry would write to you; but besides public business he pleads his being engaged in writing a heroic Poem of which the family are the subject. You will have your part in it. He celebrates our usual matin entertainment, and the music of those fine sounds, with which he and I are accustomed to regale the ears of the fraternity.

Harrison holds a distinguished place in the piece. His sedentary exploits are sung in strains of laborious dulness [sic]. The many breeches he has worn out during the war are enumerated, nor are the depredations which long sitting has made on his [blank in original manuscript] unsung.

If fine print had been in use in those days, Hamilton probably would have used it to write the next little note:

I think it necessary for the credit of my own wit to tell you that I have borrowed the wit of the present collation from Mc.Henry.

To Lt. Col. John Laurens May 22nd 1779 (Papers of Alexander Hamilton, volume 2, pp. 53-54)

*Gasp!* Hamilton, you plagiarist!

Well, “boring Founding Fathers” myth abolished! Another “herculean” episode successfully triumphs over revisionism!! LOL.

Today we will hear from an address which President John Adams gave to the officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Massachusetts Militia, on October 11, 1798:

While our country remains untainted with the principles and manners which are now producing desolation in so many parts of the world; while she continues sincere, and incapable of insidious and impious policy, we shall have the strongest reason to rejoice in the local destination assigned us by Providence.

But should the people of America once become capable of that deep simulation towards one another, and towards foreign nations, which assumes the language of justice and moderation while it is practising [sic] iniquity and extravagance, and displays in the most captivating manner the charming pictures of candor, frankness, and sincerity, while it is rioting in rapine and insolence, this country will be the most miserable habitation in the world; because we have no government capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. … Oaths in this country are as yet universally considered as sacred obligations. That which you have taken and so solemnly repeated on that venerable spot, is an ample pledge of your sincerity and devotion to your country and its government. Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States (edited by Charles Francis Adams), volume 10, pages 227-228.

He does not come out and say it, but their need be no doubt that he is making the point that our Constitution cannot successfully govern us without religion and morality in the people, both in those who administer the government (since they are bound by their sacred oaths of office), and by the populace (since the amount of civil government needed to govern society will rely wholly upon their moral principles and habits, or lack thereof).

I think we too easily forget this truth — even we who are informed on these matters. Tyranny is a horrible thing, but it is the price that a nation pays for its own depravity. Our Constitution no longer binds us, or governs us, because, as Alexander Hamilton warned, we have become “old and corrupt,” and are no longer “young and virtuous.” (1)

I regret to say that all our attempts to reinstate the Constitution through legal and other means, even if successful, would be in vain. Why is this? To echo Adams: “Our Constitution is WHOLLY INADEQUATE to govern a people that is not religious and moral.” We are not, as a people, religious and virtuous. Even the Christian Church of this country is not, as a majority, religious and virtuous — at least, not in the true and biblical sense. Whether we realize it or not, we have taken on a very, very deceptive form of humanism, and by being like the culture, have become like the rotten meat, and not the salt and the light.

Do I suggest that we take our country back by force of arms? No. It is much too late for that.

Beyond the fact that our forms of resistance, humanly speaking, are far too inferior for us to stand the slightest chance, it would only aggravate the evil passions which dominate our nation now. I think Hamilton put it best: “[T]he passions of revolution are apt to hurry even good men into excesses.” (2)

I think we tend to take terms like “war” and “revolution” a bit to lightly; after seeing the approaching horrors of tyranny, we are quick to revert to the Jeffersonian saying that

“God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. … what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.” (3)

We easily ignore or forget, as Jefferson apparently did, the dearer cost than lives that war, particularly revolt, demands: innocence. Liberty is not preserved by the people struggling continually with their government; liberty is preserved by the people struggling to maintain virtue. War, and especially revolution, does anything but encourage virtue. On the contrary, it brings out the very worst in human nature. And when a nation revolts, it casts off the established authority, however excessive its power may have been, that once kept the people in check. At the same time, those who are most revolutionary (i. e., those who would cast off all control and all restraint) usually dominate revolutions and revolts. The outcome of such revolutions? Anarchy, and then another (usually more oppressive) form of despotism. Remember the French Revolution.

Every other revolution and revolt has had this fate — except the American Revolution. And the reason for our victory was not due to luck, or to our superior principles. I don’t even think that we could rightly say that American virtue insured its success. Rather, it was the hand and blessing of God. But as Washington said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.” (4)

What then, is to be done? A Great Awakening is needed to shake the Christian Church away from the things of this world that have deceived her, and bring her back to Christ. But such an awakening will have to be brought on by more than just supernatural manifestations — it seems that the Church has idolized the spiritual in place of the Spirit, and has sought for the manifestations of God’s power, and not sought the powerful God. When we realize that even the gifts of God will profit us nothing apart from God, then we shall begin the road toward true revival.

To wake the American church out of her Laodicean apathy, however, there may have to come times of severe tribulation. Perhaps only then will she realize that she is poor, blind, and naked, and only then will she run to Christ, and receive from Him heavenly riches, eye salve, and unblemished garments (Revelation 3:14-22).

After the call to revival has gone forth, and those who have ears to hear have heard and obeyed, and those who have hard hearts will fall away, the great possibility is that then Christ will receive His Church. Maranatha!