Joseph Galloway on the Supremacy of British Authority

Of the many justifications for going to war, perhaps nothing proved more influential to the American colonies than religion. A countless number of sermons point to the fact that religion played a powerful role in convincing the colonies that war with their "Mother Land" was justifiable and sanctioned by God.

This religious "fever" for war, though thoroughly convincing to the majority, did not convince everyone. Case in point: Joseph Galloway.

Galloway, who was a representative of Pennsylvania to the First Continental Congress, was a passionate voice in favor of American reconciliation with Britain, so much so that his loyalist leanings eventually led him to abandon his home in America and flee to Britain. Before his "treason," however, Galloway campaigned hard for a resolution to the crisis. To add credence to his argument, Galloway, like his pro-independence opponents, used religion to justify his proposals. In his popular pamphlet, A Candid Examination of the Mutual Claims of Great Britain and The Colonies, Galloway offers a gloom-and-doom prophesy on the possible dangers of American independence, which include his fear of a Franco/Catholic incursion into the Americas. He writes:

Do you wish to exchange the mild and equal rule of English customs and manners and your inestimable religion, for the tyranny of a foreign yoke, and the bloody supersticions of popery? Or if you design to give up your present enjoyment of all the blessings of life, for the horrors and distresses of a civil war, and the fatal consequesnces which must ifallibly attend yourselves, and your posterity? Are you still resolved to surrender up your reason to the miserable sophistry and gargon of designing men, and to hazard all these direful misfortunes, rather than be united with your brethren and fellow subjects in Briatian? (62).

In a September, 1774 speech given to the Continental Congress, Galloway continued his pro-British argument by pointing to the "supreme authority" of the British government over their American colonies:

These advocates also assert, what we cannot deny--That the discovery of the Colonies was made under a commission granted by the supreme authority of the British State, that they have been settled under that authority. and therefore are truly the property of that State. Parliamentary jurisdiction has been constantly exercised over them from their first settlement; its executive authority has ever run through all their inferior political systems: the Colonists have ever sworn allegiance to the British State, and have been considered, both by the State and by themselves, as subjects of the British Government. Protection and allegiance are reciprocal duties; the one cannot exist without the other. The Colonies cannot claim the protection of Britain upon any principle of reason or law, while they deny its supreme authority. Upon this ground the authority of Parliament stands too firm to be shaken by any arguments whatever; and therefore to deny that authority, and at the same time to declare their incapacity to be represented, amounts to a full and explicit declaration of independence.

Galloway's insistence on British authority and law is interesting to consider when juxtaposed with the opening verses of Romans Chapter 13 of the Bible:

1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.

2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.

And to those that questioned Galloway's loyalist reasoning by appealing to the "laws of nature" and "nature's God" to justify their treason, Galloway writes:

We have seen all the American writers on the subject, adopting untenable principles and thence rearing the most wild and chimerical superstructures. Some of them have fixed on, as a source from whence to draw American Right, “the laws of God and nature,” the common rights of mankind and “American charters.” Others finding that the claims of the colonies could not be supported upon these pillars, have racked their inventions to find distinctions which never existed, nor can exist…And after all of them have been fully considered, even the authors themselves, finding that they have conveyed no satisfactory idea to the intelligent of mind, either of the extent of parliamentary authority, or of the rights of America, have exploded them, and taken new ground, which will be found equally indefensible.

For Joseph Galloway and many others, the rampant talk of revolution and independence was not only a frightening upheaval of the status quo, but also a direct violation to God's laws. Great Britain had sovereign and divine authority over its American colonies, and any argument to the contrary was both treason and blasphemy.

Long Live King Washington???

But the United States doesn't have a royal family...right? Well, we could have.

As the rumor states, a group of frustrated American colonists, fed up with the lack of productivity in the Continental Congress, actually considered a coup d' etat of the national government and the establishment of a monarchy, with George Washington as its king. A 1782 letter to Washington from Colonel Lewis Nichola is a perfect illustration of just how frustrated some colonists were beginning to feel with the infant American government. Colonel Nichola writes:

This war must have shewn to all, but to military men in particular the weakness of republicks, and the exertions the army has been able to make by being under a proper head...Some people have so connected the ideas of tyranny and monarchy as to find it very difficult to seperate them, it may therefore be requisite to give the head of such a constitution as I propose, some title apparently more moderate, but if all other things are once adjusted I believe strong arguments might he produced for admitting the title of king, which I conceive would be attended with some material advantage. …Republican bigots will certainly consider my opinions as heterdox, and the maintainer thereof as meriting fire and fagots, I have therefore hitherto kept them within my own breast [my emphasis].

Washington, however, despised such suggestions, dismissing them as virtual heresies. In response to Colonel Nichola's letter, Washington wrote:

I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable; at the same time in justice to my own feelings I must add, that no Man possesses a more sincere wish to see ample justice done to the Army than I do, and as far as my powers and influence, in a constitutional way extend, they shall be employed to the utmost of my abilities to effect it, should there be any occasion. Let me conjure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for yourself or posterity, or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your Mind, and never communicate, as from yourself, or any one else, a sentiment of the like Nature. [my emphasis].

In his typically stern, yet gentlemanly style, Washington made it abundantly clear that he stood opposed to an American monarchy.

But what if he had embraced the idea of being King?

In a recent Newsweek web article, Kurt Soller discusses how genealogy buffs, for the past century, have been toying over the notion of a Washington monarchy and what it would have meant for America today.

Genealogists have been pondering the possibilities had President Washington been a bit more power-hungry. As early as 1908, newspapers published accounts of history buffs who worked their way through the Washington family tree using rules of succession to determine the rightful heir to the theoretical American throne. But without the Internet, branches of the Washington tree would be lost in Ohio, say, or forgotten by lineage sleuths who couldn't quite decipher a family tree made complicated because Washington himself didn't have any children.

But while brainstorming ideas for their election-themed coverage, Ancestry.com turned to their Chief Family Historian, Megan Smolenyak, for an answer to the historical mystery. Smolenyak first turned to Google where she figured out that, because kinship rules vary by country and because Washington was childless, there were four possible kings (or queens) among the nearly 8,000 descendants of Washington who are alive today.

So, who would be "King" of America today had Washington accepted such a position?

Eighty-two-year-old Paul Emery Washington of San Antonio, Texas, a relatively average American who spent his life climbing the corporate ladder of a building supply company would be your king. And what does Mr. Washington think of such a distinction? Well, the offer is flattering but not all that appealing. He states:

"I doubt if I'd be a very good king. We've done so well as a country without a king, so I think George made the best decision. He fought for eight years to do away with the monarchy, and I think he made the right decision. The idea of one individual having supreme power over all others is an antiquated idea -- to say the least."

Symbolism of the Dollar Bill

Our Founding Fathers have become icons of American culture. You see their monuments all across this nation's landscape. In Washington D.C., South Dakota, Virginia and other locations, our Founders are immortalized in marble and stone. Even the very money we use every day pays homage to several of these important heroes. Though each of these various monuments have their own unique story, I want to focus on the one that is perhaps the most overlooked: our dollar bill.

Have you ever wondered where all that stuff on the dollar bill comes from? Why there are so many strange letters, pictures, etc.? The dollar bill has a tremendous amount of symbolism and history to it. Chances are that your average dollar bill looks like the one above (unless you have one of the new ones). The format for this type of dollar bill was created in 1957, and has been the longest standing design in American history. The paper money that comes to us from the various mints across the nation is, in reality, hardly paper. The average dollar bill (and other bills for that matter) is actually a linen/cotton/silk blend, which has proven to stand the test of time. Just think about how long a dollar bill can actually last. Pretty incredible for a piece of "paper." The various blue, red, and green fibers make it tremendously hard to duplicate. Even the type of ink used for our money goes through a rigorous process.

During the Second Continental Congress, the delegates commissioned a 7-man committee (Including Benjamin Franklin) to come up with a national seal, emblem and motto. The committee began its work in 1776, but quickly came to a screeching halt, since the delegates were unable to agree on anything. The only thing that came out of the committee was the idea of the all-seeing eye hovering above a pyramid. Many people today believe this to be an inspiration of Freemasonry. The only problem with that theory is that the committee members did not come up with the idea of the Pyramid. In fact, the idea of the pyramid came from Charles Thomson and William Barton, who were both experts in Egyptian history. Both men liked the idea of using Egyptian symbolism to represent the newly established American republic. They also came up with the idea of the eye hovering unattached, to signify that America's quest was not quite complete. One of the most interesting symbols which Thomson and Barton created is the fact that the western side of the Pyramid is shaded. This was to be symbolic of the fact that the western half of America was yet to be explored. The eye was a symbol for God's ever watchful presence. The phrase "Annuit Coeptis (above the pyramid) means "He [God] has favored our undertaking." A close look at the base of the pyramid will show several Roman numerals (MDCCLXXVI) which gives us the number 1776, the year of American independence. The phrase "Novus Ordo Seclorum" means "New Order of the Ages." All of these symbols were finally accepted on June 20, 1782 and were later incorporated onto our money in 1935.

Due to the fact that the committee was only able to come up with the all-seeing eye is important to note, because it signifies that our emblem is not entirely inspired by the Founding Fathers, and that it was CERTAINLY not inspired by masonic beliefs. Both Thomson and Barton were never a part of the Freemasons, and gained their inspiration purely from their love of Egyptian history. This is important because the early American republic took many pieces of Roman, Egyptian and Greek civilization and incorporated it into our nations culture (one look at Washington D.C. proves this point. The capital building is very Roman in structure, and the Washington Monument is an Egyptian Obelisk).

It is also worth noting that the all-seeing eye on the dollar bill is actually George Washington's eye. Just turn over your dollar bill and you will see the similarity.


The image of the bald eagle has also become synonymous in our day with American virtue. It is present on virtually every national monument and national cemetery. For most, the eagle is the undisputed symbol of American independence. Our Founding Fathers however, had a completely different interpretation and sentiment. The early Founders (including Franklin, Jefferson and Washington) were against the idea of an eagle as the national symbol. Franklin actually wanted the rattlesnake to be used as the national symbol. He wanted it because he believed a rattlesnake was unique to only America, and because rattlesnakes have no eyelids (meaning they are forever vigilant). Many scientists of the 18th century believed that the Rattlesnake never slept, making it even more vigilant. Franklin even suggested that the Rattlesnake never strikes unless attacked, signifying America's will to avoid conflict unless attacked first. It was also believed that the Rattlesnake could be brought back to life if it was cut up and its pieces assembled and buried before midnight (a strange 18th century belief). Franklin believed this was significant because it appealed to the unity of the States (he used this analogy in his earliest political cartoon "Join or Die"). Franklin hated the eagle, calling it "a despicable vulture of the sky." In fact, the Rattlesnake had a lot of significance for the founding generation. It was present on several flags, including the first Naval Jack and the Gadsen "Don't Tread on Me" flag. After the Rattlesnake was shot down, Franklin switched to the wild turkey, claiming that it was "the most virtuous of all birds."

The bald eagle was later accepted, because it wears no crown, dominates the sky, and is not afraid of a storm. A closer examination of the eagle reveals that he is clutching 13 arrows and 13 olive branches. The olive branches are symbolic of America's eternal quest for peace, and the arrows are symbolic of America's readiness to fight. The phrase above the eagle "E Pluribus Unum" means "Many now one" signifying the hope for American unity. The eagle is also not holding on to the shield, which is symbolic of America's independence, and the fact that she can stand on her own. There is also a cloud of 13 stars hovering over the Eagle, which represent the 13 colonies.

To call the number 13 unlucky is sort of unAmerican. For example:
-The first colonies numbered 13
-13 colonies signed on for independence
-There are 13 stars above the eagle
-There are 13 steps on the pyramid
-There are 13 letters in the Latin phrase ANNUIT COEPTIS
-There are 13 stripes on the U.S. flag and eagle's shield
-There are 13 olive branches (each olive branch has 13 pieces of fruit attached to it.
-There are 13 arrows

Masonic conspiracy theorists maintain that the number 13 is indicative of the devil, and that it also represents the path to a new world order. As you can see, however, there is a much simpler interpretation...the 13 States!

This symbol, which is on the front of the dollar bill, is significant in many ways as well. First off, the scale symbolizes the government's responsibility to maintain a balanced budget, and to be ever-responsible for the people's money (Like that ever happens today!) The key symbolizes the key of the treasury, which is to be always secure (yeah right). There is also the masonic marking of the square, which is to signify exactness in America's finances.

Many people believe these to be masonic symbols that are somehow "magical" or "covert," and that the Founding Fathers were brainwashed by masonic teachings. In reality however, this is not all that accurate. In Colonial America it was common for people to be a part of several social clubs, and the Freemasons are just one of the many that existed in that era. For example, Benjamin Franklin started a group called the Junto, and Washington was a member of the Society of the Cincinnati. The Masons were simply another gentleman's club of the time, which proved beneficial in the post-enlightenment era of early America. They were not a "secretive" society that had an agenda to create a new world order. They were simply another way for colonists to gather and socialize (and get drunk). It is worth noting that many of these groups (including Freemasons) suffered from a dramatic drop in membership when the radio and television were invented. In other words, people found other things to do. Popular culture will always teach that the Freemasons were the keepers of a secret or unique society, and that their rituals trace back thousands of years. History, however, teaches that there is no concrete evidence OF ANY KIND to support this claim. They were simply one of the many social clubs of the time.


There is one final symbol worth mentioning. The phrase "In God We Trust" that is so very controversial for many Americans today actually came long after the Founding Founders. In fact, the Founders rarely used the word "God." Instead they used words like "Providence" and "Divinity." The phrase "In God we Trust" comes at a later time. In fact, the phrase has its roots in the post Civil War era. It is similar to how the phrase "One nation, under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Many people make the mistake of thinking that these phrases have been a part of our nation since the beginning. That is simply not true. In fact, the motto that our Founding Fathers embraced was one simple word: "liberty."

So the next time you pull out a dollar bill, remember that it's not merely a piece of paper, but a piece of history as well.

Was Lexington and Concord the Beginning?

On this day in 1775, the British Army under the command of Lt. Colonel Francis Smith ordered his army of some 700+ to attack and seize the colonial armaments being stored at Concord. In response, the Boston Minutemen rallied in defence of their "nation," claiming that the British had finally crossed the proverbial line in the sand. The brave rabble of American militiamen who bravely stood against the British have been hailed for their bravery as they stood against the might of the British Army. As Ralph Waldo Emerson stated in his epic poem that has forever immortalized this battle:

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April's breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood
And fired the shot heard round the world.

Though nobody can doubt the boldness of this British advancement, several historians have begun to question whether or not the battles of Lexington & Concord have received too much attention and credit. While nobody will deny that the battle was both vicious and brave for the colonials, one has to question why this battle is given the unique distinction as being the "beginning battle" to the American Revolution.

First off, I want to make it clear that I am in no way trying to discredit the heroism or significance of the Battle of Lexington & Concord. Instead, I believe that we should strive to put it into the context in the manner that its contemporaries understood it. By doing so, we can learn and appreciate the TRUE nature and importance of this battle.

As far as our Founding Fathers were concerned, the Battle of Lexington and Concord was but another British atrocity that demanded a response. The measure and severity of that response, however, was a topic of great debate between the several delegates to the Continental Congress. Understandably, the Massachusetts delegates demanded war, while many others demanded a peaceful response. War was never officially declared by the Congress, though they did manage to officially appoint George Washington to be the General of the newly established Continental Army. This, however, came AFTER the battle.

It is also important to note that very few of Massachusetts's sister colonies were making preparations for war. As far as they saw it, peace was still very much a possibility and hope. There was also no official declaration for independence, nor any new form of government established. Clearly, our Founding Fathers understood the atrocity of Lexington and Concord to be a serious problem, but not necessarily an act of war.

Washington and the Newburgh Conspiracy

After roughly eight years of bloddy warfare, the United States looked as though their dream of independence might come true after all. The American victory at Yorktown in 1781 had severely damaged England's desire for any further war, and the Fench involvement signified that the American cause for independence had propelled Britain into a virtual world war. Faced with such a predicament, the British were forced to consider a peace with their former colonies.

Before that peace could be negotiated, another two years would pass before both Britain and America sat down at the bargaining table. During this time, the Continental Congress faced a severe financial crisis, in which they were unable (or possibly not fully willing) to supply the army under Washington. Though the fighing had all but stopped, Washington was still forced to maintain the Continental Army until the final peace treaty was signed. As a result, the Continental Army suffered greatly in terms of hunger, lack of equiptment, fatigue and cold.

In response to these justifiable grievances, several officers withing the Continental Army formed an anonymous pact to overthrow the Continental Congress and extablish a new government. This coup was backed by several of Washington's most trusted men, who felt that the cause of liberty was being threatened by the politicians at home.

In the end, Washington was able to put down the rebellion, but it was far from easy. Here is an excellent article from the History Channel Website on how Washington handled the Newburgh Conspiracy, which was, in my opinion, Washington's finest hour:

When word of the letter and its call for an unsanctioned meeting of officers reached him, Washington issued a general order forbidding any unsanctioned meetings and called for a general assembly of officers for March 15. At the meeting, Washington began his speech to the officers by saying, “Gentlemen: By an anonymous summons, an attempt has been made to convene you together; how inconsistent with the rules of propriety! How unmilitary! And how subversive of all order and discipline...”

Washington continued by pledging, “to exert whatever ability I am possessed of, in your favor.” He added, “Let me entreat you, gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures, which viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity, and sully the glory you have hitherto maintained; let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress.”

When he finished, Washington removed a letter from his breast pocket that he had received from a member of the Continental Congress. He hesitated for a moment as he looked down at the letter before fumbling to retrieve a pair of spectacles from his pocket. Before reading the letter, Washington, in an almost apologetic tone said, “Gentlemen, you must pardon me. I have grown old in the service of my country and now find that I am growing blind.” The eyes of most of his audience filled with tears. The content of the letter became irrelevant as the assembled officers realized that Washington had given as much or more in the service of the new nation as any of them. Within minutes, the officers voted unanimously to express confidence in Congress and their country.

In a letter to the Continental Congress dated March 18, 1783, Washington wrote to assure the body that the unrest of officers was over, writing, “The result of the proceedings of the grand convention of the officers, which I have the honor of enclosing to your Excellency for the inspection of Congress, will, I flatter myself, be considered as the last glorious proof of patriotism which could have been given by men who aspired to the distinction of a Patriot army; and will not only confirm their claim to the justice, but will increase their title to the gratitude of their country.”

America's First Memorial

On this day, in 1776, the Continental Congress authorized the first American war memorial in history. It was dedicated to Brigadier General Richard Montgomery who was killed during the failed attack on Quebec the previous year. It was also at this battle that Benedict Arnold was wounded.

Due to his exemplary leadership and bravery in battle, Montgomery was honored with the highest recognition the nation could afford him. The monument, which symbolizes Montgomery's bravery and intellect, was adorned with a plaque which reads:

This Monument is erected by the order of Congress 25th Janry 1776 to transmit to Posterity a grateful remembrance of the patriotism conduct enterprise & perserverance of Major General RICHARD MONTGOMERY Who after a series of successes amidst the most discouraging Difficulties FELL in the attack on QUEBEC 31st Decbr 1775. Aged 37 years.

Though obscured by years of progress, this monument, which still stands today at New York City's St. Paul's Chapel (directly across from where the World Trade Towers once stood), stands as a memorial to all Americans of the bravery of not only Montgomery, but of all Americans who fought and died in the American Revolution. Though virtually forgotten by the majority of the American populace, Montgomery retains a special spot in the pantheon of great American generals.