4th of July Article(why in America the Fourth of July and Christmas were our two top holidays?)

This year marks 225(older, but timeless article) years since our Founding Fathers gave us our National Birth Certificate. We continue to be the longest on-going Constitutional Republic in the history of the world. Blessings such as these are not by chance or accidental. They are blessings of God.

On July 2, 1776, Congress voted to approve a complete separation from Great Britain. Two days afterwards — July 4th —the early draft of the Declaration of Independence was signed, albeit by only two individuals at that time: John Hancock, President of Congress, and Charles Thompson, Secretary of Congress. Four days later, on July 8, members of Congress took that document and read it aloud from the steps of Independence Hall, proclaiming it to the city of Philadelphia, after which the Liberty Bell was rung. The inscription around the top of that bell, Leviticus 25:10, was most appropriate for the occasion: “Proclaim liberty throughout the land and to all the inhabitants thereof”.

To see the turmoil in other nations, their struggles and multiple revolutions, and yet to see the stability and blessings that we have here in America, we may ask how has this been achieved? What was the basis of American Independence? John Adams said “The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity”. Perhaps the clearest identification of the spirit of the American Revolution was given by John Adams in a letter to Abigail the day after Congress approved the Declaration. He wrote her two letters on that day; the first was short and concise, jubilant that the Declaration had been approved. The second was much longer and more pensive, giving serious consideration to what had been done that day. Adams cautiously noted: "This day will be the most memorable epic in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival".

It is amazing that on the very day they approved the Declaration, Adams was already foreseeing that their actions would be celebrated by future generations. Adams contemplated whether it would be proper to hold such celebrations, but then concluded that the day should be commemorated– but in a particular manner and with a specific spirit. As he told Abigail: “It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty”.

John Adams believed that the Fourth of July should become a religious holiday– a day when we remembered God's hand in deliverance and a day of religious activities when we committed ourselves to Him in "solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty." Such was the spirit of the American Revolution as seen through the eyes of those who led it, evidenced even further in the words of John Quincy Adams, one who was deeply involved in the activities of the Revolution.

In 1837, when he was 69 years old, he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts. He began that address with a question: “Why is it, friends and fellow citizens, that you are here assembled? Why is it that entering on the 62nd year of our national existence you have honored [me] with an invitation to address you. . . ?”

The answer was easy: they had asked him to address them because he was old enough to remember what went on; they wanted an eye-witness to tell them of it! He next asked them: “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?"

An interesting question: why is it that in America the Fourth of July and Christmas were our two top holidays? Note his answer: “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?

According to John Quincy Adams, Christmas and the Fourth of July were intrinsically connected. On the Fourth of July, the Founders simply took the precepts of Christ which came into the world through His birth (Christmas) and incorporated those principles into civil government.

Have you ever considered what it meant for those 56 men— an eclectic group of ministers, business men, teachers, university professors, sailors, captains, farmers— to sign the Declaration of Independence? This was a contract that began with the reasons for the separation from Great Britain and closed in the final paragraph stating “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor”.

Dr. Benjamin Rush, the father of American Medicine and a signer, recorded that day in his diary. In 1781, he wrote to John Adams “Do you recollect the pensive and awful silence which pervaded the House when we were called up, one after another, to the table of the President of Congress to subscribe to what was believed by many at that time to be our death warrants? The silence and gloom of the morning was interrupted, I well recollect, only for a moment by Colonel Harrison of Virginia (a big guy) who said to Mr. Gerry (small in stature) at the table: 'I shall have a great advantage over you, Mr. Gerry, when we are all hung for what we are now doing... From the size and weight of my body I shall die in a few minutes, but from the lightness of your body you will dance in the air an hour or two before you are dead.' This speech procured a transient smile, but it was soon succeeded by the solemnity with which the whole business was conducted.”

These men took this pledge seriously. Robert Morris of Pennsylvania is an example of the highest level of integrity. He was chosen as the financier of the American Revolution. What an honor, except that there was no bank willing to give any loans to help fund the revolution. It was three years and the Battle of Saratoga before America got any kind of funding at all. After winning that battle, foreign nations like France, Holland, and others decided maybe we weren't such a bad risk and began loaning us money. So where did we get money for the first three years? Congress, at that time, could not have obtained a loan of one thousand dollars, yet Robert Morris effected loans upon his own credit, of tens of thousands. In 1781, Robert Morris conceived the expedition against Cornwallis, at Yorktown. He asked Judge Peters of Pennsylvania, “What can you do for me?” “With money, everything, without it, nothing,” he replied, at the same time turning with anxious look toward Mr. Morris. “Let me know the sum you desire,” said Mr. Morris; and before noon Washington's plan and estimates were complete. Robert Morris promised him the amount, and he raised it upon his own responsibility. It has been justly remarked, that: “If it were not demonstrable by official records, posterity would hardly be made to believe that the campaign of 1781, which resulted in the capture of Cornwallis, and virtually closed the Revolutionary War, was sustained wholly on the credit of an individual merchant.” America couldn't repay him because there was no money and yet Robert Morris never complained because he had given his word.

You see the same thing in the life of John Hart. He was a strong Christian gentleman and Speaker of the House of Representatives in New Jersey. He promised to help provide them with guidance and leadership. There were three things that were important in his life; his Savior, his family and his farm. Because of his signature on the Declaration, the British were seeking him (and the rest of the signers) to execute as traitors. John Hart fled his home after which his farm was ravaged, his timber destroyed, his cattle and stock butchered for the use of the British army. He did not dare to remain two nights in the same location. After Washington's success at the battle of Trenton, he finally returned home to find that his wife had died and his children scattered. He lost almost everything that was important to him but kept his word.

John Hancock, a very wealthy individual lived in a mansion reflecting his princely fortune — one of the largest in the Province of Massachusetts. During the time the American army besieged Boston to rid it of the British, the American officers proposed the entire destruction of the city. “By the execution of such a plan, the whole fortune of Mr. Hancock would have been sacrificed. Yet he readily acceded to the measure, declaring his willingness to surrender his all, whenever the liberties of his country should require it”. A man of his word, he demonstrated his integrity.

The 16 Congressional proclamations for prayer and fasting throughout the Revolution were not bland (i.e. , the acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, the quoting of Romans 14:17, etc.); however, this is not unusual considering the prominent role that many ministers played in the Revolution.

One such example is John Peter Muhlenburg. In a sermon delivered to his Virginia congregation on January 21, 1776, he preached verse by verse from Ecclesiastes 3— the passage which speaks of a season and a time to every purpose under heaven. Arriving at verse 8, which declares that there is a time of war and a time of peace, Muhlenburg noted that this surely was not the time of peace; this was the time of war. Concluding with a prayer, and while standing in full view of the congregation, he removed his clerical robes to reveal that beneath them he was wearing the uniform of an officer in the Continental army! He marched to the back of the church; ordered the drum to beat for recruits and over three hundred men joined him, becoming the Eighth Virginia Brigade. John Peter Muhlenburg finished the Revolution as a Major-General, having been at Valley Forge and having participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, Monmouth, Stonypoint, and Yorktown.

Another minister-leader in the Revolution was the Reverend James Caldwell. His actions during one battle inspired a painting showing him standing with a stack of hymn books in his arms while engaged in the midst of a fierce battle against the British outside a battered Presbyterian church. During the battle, the Americans had developed a serious problem: they had run out of wadding for their guns, which was just as serious as having no ammunition. Reverend Caldwell recognized the perfect solution; he ran inside the church and returned with a stack of Watts Hymnals — one of the strongest doctrinal hymnals of the Christian faith (Isaac Watts authored “O God Our Help In Ages Past”, “Joy to the World”, “Jesus Shall Reign”, and several other classic hymns). Distributing the Watts Hymnals among the soldiers served two purposes: first, its pages would provide the needed wadding; second, the use of the hymnal carried a symbolic message. Reverend Caldwell took that hymn book— the source of great doctrine and spiritual truth— raised it up in the air and shouted to the Americans, “Give 'em Watts, boys!”

The spiritual emphasis manifested so often by the Americans during the Revolution caused one Crown-appointed British governor to write to Great Britain complaining that: “If you ask an American who is his master, he'll tell you he has none. And he has no governor but Jesus Christ”.

Letters like this, and sermons like those preached by the Reverend Peter Powers (“Jesus Christ the King”), gave rise to a motto of the American Revolution. Most of us are unaware that the American Revolution even had a motto, but most wars do (e.g., World War II – “Remember Pearl Harbor”; the Texas' war for independence – “Remember the Alamo”; etc.). The motto of the American Revolution was directed against King George III— who concapriciously, and regularly violated “the laws of nature and of nature's God”. The motto was very simple and very direct: No King but King Jesus!

Preserving American liberty depends first upon our understanding the foundations on which this great country was built and then preserving the principles on which it was founded. Let's not let the purpose for which we were established be forgotten. The Founding Fathers have passed us a torch; let's not let it go out.

Was "No King but Jesus" a Revolutionary War Slogan?
Emily Yoffe

At a 1999 commencement speech at Bob Jones University, Attorney General-designate John Ashcroft said this phrase was a slogan of the founding fathers.
He also said this sentiment is found in the Declaration of Independence in the phrase, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights." Was this the motivating cry of the Revolution, and was Thomas Jefferson alluding to it in the Declaration?

While people in the colonies used the expression, it was not a central rallying cry, nor is it implied in the Declaration of Independence. Members of radical sects first used the phrase in a revolutionary context in England in the mid-17th century during the British Civil War.
Groups such as the Diggers and the Levellers believed that after the execution of Charles I, a biblical monarchy was nigh and that Jesus would be the king. (Note to the future attorney general:
The Diggers advocated the abolition of private property, and the Levellers were for the separation of church and state.)
The phrase was particularly incendiary because it attacked the authority of both king and clergy. In the American colonies, there are some historical references to it being said by Presbyterians who were agitating against the authority of the British king and harkening back to the earlier revolution.

But it was the Enlightenment, not Revelation, which was the underlying philosophy of the founders. While Jefferson was a member of the Anglican Church, he, like Washington, Adams, Madison, and Franklin, was a Deist.
That is, he believed in a rational God who created the world but that it was up to men, through reason and science, to shape it. Jefferson believed Jesus was a historical figure and a sublime moral philosopher, but he, like his fellow founders, was skeptical about the divinity of Jesus.

I would like to remind the "Far Left" that socialism has no future in the United States of America. I will remind them with my sword if need be, but for now I will use the gentile words of Thomas Jefferson.

Thomas Jefferson's Last Letter
Ten days before the 50th of the signing of the Declaration of
Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote this letter in response to the
committees’ invitation to honor him at the celebration. Being in poor
health, Jefferson had to decline, but sent this letter in his place.
On the eve of this great anniversary, Jefferson was in his home at
Monticello, struggling to stay alive for one more day. Some 500 miles away
in Quincy, Massachusetts, John Adams was also dying. He passed away on the
day of the fourth, his last words reflecting the thoughts of an old
friend: "Thomas Jefferson still survives."
Shortly after midnight, Jefferson woke, and asked his granddaughter who
stood at his bedside, "Is it the fourth?" She said that it was, and then
perhaps he smiled. In one of the most remarkable coincidences in history,
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams--the two great architects of the
Declaration of Independence--died within hours of each other on July 4,
1826, 50 years after they created the words that gave birth to this great
land of liberty.
Monticello, June 24, 1826
Respected Sir,
The kind invitation I received from you, on the part of the citizens of
the city of Washington, to be present with them at their celebration of
the fiftieth anniversary of American Independence, as one of the surviving
signers of an instrument pregnant with our own, and the fate of the world,
is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the honorable
accompaniment proposed for the comfort of the journey. It adds sensibly to
the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a personal
participation in the rejoicing of that day. But acquiescence is a duty,
under circumstances not placed among those we are permitted to control. I
should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there
congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host
of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful
election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword;
and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow
citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to
approve the choice we made. May it be to the world, what I believe it will
be (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all), the signal
of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and
superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the
blessings and security of self-government. That form which we have
substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason
and freedom of opinion. All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of
man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to
every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born
with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready
to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope
for others. For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever
refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to
them.
I will ask permission here to express the pleasure with which I should
have met my ancient neighbors of the city of Washington and its
vicinities, with whom I passed so many years of a pleasing social
intercourse; an intercourse which so much relieved the anxieties of the
public cares, and left impressions so deeply engraved in my affections, as
never to be forgotten. With my regret that ill health forbids me the
gratification of an acceptance, be pleased to receive for yourself and
those for whom you write, the assurance of my highest respect and friendly
attachments.
Thomas Jefferson

Freedom belongs to all men and woman no matter where they are. Freedom is not an American enigma, nor is it something only for Americans. Our Founding Fathers knew this, we cannot forget nor be forced to do so. Our first flag bore these words, "Don't Tread On Me". I would remind the socialists again that these words hold true today... You will not steal away my liberty, and you will not stand in the way of those who would seek it for themselves.

But it was the Enlightenment, not Revelation, which was the underlying philosophy of the founders. While Jefferson was a member of the Anglican Church, he, like Washington, Adams, Madison, and Franklin, was a Deist.

The Enlightenment may have been the underlying philosophy of other revolutionary forces, but not the American, which simply sought to retain their status quo against British exploitation. Contrast the French Revolution with the American fight for Independence.

John Eidsmoe's "Christianity and the Constitution" explores this claim that the founders were "deists." Deism holds that once the demiurge has set things in motion, he/it does not interfer with the established order. Prayer is meaningless to deists. Yet, our founders were men of prayer and repeatedly petitioned Providence to intercede in the afairs of men. That is not deism. That is Revealed Religion (Christianity).

We owe our legacy of freedom to men of faith and action. May God continue to bless America.

Yet these men of faith & action were wise enough to conclude our Constitution with a prohibition that no State or Federal offices shall ever have a religious Test as a requirement.

That "religous test" was intended to calm interdenominational contentions. Several of the first thirteen States had religious establishments (where one Christian denomination was favored and supported). Yet, this federal constitutional provision did NOT disuade State Constitutions from their religious tests for State office Qualifications for Office.

They then begain our BOR's with a prohibition that some of those same officals, Congress, " -- shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, -- "

Fancy that.

The States sought to protect their religious establishements from a potentially imposed federal establishment. The Real 1st Amendment. Requirement(s) for office holders, Monuments and reliefs with religious themes, public proclamations, public prayer, ... all these practices were an unquestioned part of this nation's past. Now, today one must conclude from federal court rulings that honoring God in almost any form (with few exceptions) is "unconstitutional." The law hasn't changed. Men have done this.

The truth is there for anyone interested in finding it. The founders were prodigious writers.

Yet these men of faith & action were wise enough to conclude our Constitution with a prohibition that no State or Federal offices shall ever have a religious Test as a requirement.
They then began our BOR's with a prohibition that some of those same officals, Congress, " -- shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, -- "
Fancy that.

That "religious test" was intended to calm interdenominational contentions.

No, its meaning is clear, in context with the oath to support our Constitution. Read Art VI.

Several of the first thirteen States had religious establishments (where one Christian denomination was favored and supported). Yet, this federal constitutional provision did NOT disuade State Constitutions from their religious tests for State office.

ALL officials, fed/state/local, must swear to support the Constitution, and " --- no religious Test shall ever be required --- " to ANY office. Read Art. VI.

Qualifications for Office.

Webster wrote a great dictionary.

They then began our BOR's with a prohibition that some of those same officals, Congress, " -- shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, -- "
Fancy that.

The States sought to protect their religious establishements from a potentially imposed federal establishment. Requirement(s) for office holders, Monuments and reliefs with religious themes, public proclamations, public prayer, ... all these practices were an unquestioned part of this nation's past. Now, today one must conclude from federal court rulings that honoring God in almost any form (with few exceptions) is "unconstitutional." The law hasn't changed. Men have done this. The truth is there for anyone interested in finding it. The founders were prodigious writers.

Yep.. You should read their greatest work, our Constitution.. And than try to understand its principles. One of its unwritten principles is that politics & religion don't mix. Thus -- No religious tests & no respecting particular establishments. Learn to live with that bit of common sense.

U.S. Constitution: Article VI

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

______________________________________

The meaning above is clear, in context with the oath to support our Constitution. Read Art VI.

"...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office of public trust under the United States." (Article VI, para 3).
"under the United States" is key here. This provision only refers to offices of the general government (United States), not the State governments.

In context, "under the United States" clearly refers to "ANY office of public trust".

The Constitutional principles involved here are obvious.
ALL officials, Fed/State/Local were bound to honor our Constitution, and NO religious tests were to be used to qualify them for ANY office.

In context, "under the United States" clearly refers to "ANY office of public trust".

No, it does not. If that were the intent then simply saying "any office of public trust" is sufficient. Instead, the qualifying (limiting) phrase "under the United States" is appended.

The phrase "United States" means something clear and distinct from the "several States". The conjunction "but" introduces a contrast from that which precedes it in Article IV, para 3, that is, the Oath of Affirmation applies to all mentioned:

[1] "the Senators and Representatives before mentioned". These are Senators and Representatives of the "United States", namely the Congress of the "United States" (Article I, Section 1, ff).

[2] "Members of the several State Legislatures"

[3] "all executive and judicial Officers both of the "United States" and of the "several States".

But, the religious test is proscribed as a qualification for offices or public trust under the "United States", NOT the several States. If the founders had intended the scope of para 3 to include both the United States and the several States, they would have either included it in [3] above, or repeated the qualifying phrases. But they did not. Rather they presented a change of scope, that being limited to the "United States" (the general government). They had been very careful in preserving this distinction, and the absense of the phrase "and the several States" shows that they are preserving this distinction.

As proof of this reading, several States had "religious tests" as qualification for State office well into the 19th century. Massachusettes, in 1820, (see the Daniel Webster article I provided you a link to), had such a religious test. Maine was debating whether or not to include such a religious test for State office holders.

In context, "under the United States" clearly refers to "ANY office of public trust".

"under the United States" means under the general government, not under the several States. A complete analysis of usage of the phrase "under the United States" in the COTUS reveals this.

[1] (Article 1, Section 3, para 6) "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of Honor, Trust or Profit under the United States...".

The impeachment authority of the United States is limited to the United States. In other words, the US House cannot impeach a State office holder, etc.

[2] (Article I, Section 6, para 2) "No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time: and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office."

The United States can only increase the emoluments (pay) of its own, not the State's.

[3] (Article II, Section 1, para 2) "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."

Can a State appoint one of its own as an Elector? Don't know if this has ever been done. But, my guess is that the only folks prohibited are US Congress folk, other federal officer holders or holders of Trust or Profit under the general government.

[4] (Article VI, para 3) "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

We've been over this one already.

[5] (Amendment XIV, Section 3) "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."

This last clearly distinguishes the different categories: "under the United States" and "under any State" are distinct catagories.

It's clear from the US Constitution itself, if it is internally consistent, that "under the United States" refers to the general government, not the several States. I think I've squeezed it dry.

The meaning above is clear, in context with the oath to support our Constitution. Read Art VI.

In context, "under the United States" clearly refers to "ANY office of public trust".

The Constitutional principles involved here are obvious.
ALL officials, Fed/State/Local were bound to honor our Constitution, and NO religious tests were to be used to qualify them for ANY office.

It's clear from the US Constitution itself, if it is internally consistent, that "under the United States" refers to the general government, not the several States. I think I've squeezed it dry.

Yep, you've squeezed the pedantic legalism you made of the 'under the United States' term dry as a bone.

But the principle remains that Officals of every level of our governments, Fed/State/Local, -- are bound to support our Constitution. And one of those BOR's they must support is the 1st Amendment.
-- Thus, the logic of using 'no religious test' to qualify for holding such offices.

Obviously, you want officals to be able to ignore certain of our Constitutions principles, based on religious grounds or even on State mandated tests. . That sort of position helps explain why we are in such a political mess right now, imo.
~Everyone seems to be ignoring our Constitution, and you want States to have the power to require religious testing for officials.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.