Why Am I A Monarchist
This is an easy question to answer, but at the same time I am very careful how I word my position on monarchy because the ignorant would fight my points and the intelligent could state my case so much better than I could.
History is colored by the author telling the story. As an American child we are taught one side of a conflict that became an Insurrection. Monarchies and kings are painted as tyrants regardless of the situation. This is especially true of His Majesty King George III. The events of the “war for Independence” are very hastily described from a total Insurrectionist standpoint.
King George taxed the colonists without cause. They did not have a voice in Parliament. They were infringed upon with troops in their cities… the list goes on.. all of this leads to war. However, when one takes even a cursory look at the situation from a British standpoint a completely different picture seems to emerge.
I will go into a post specifically on the Insurrectionists, their motives, their goals etc., but for now the topic at hand it monarchy in general. I bring up the British to point out that in America anyone who would look at monarchy with even the slightest positive affirmation is seen as a traitor. If this is the case with me, then so be it. I accept it.
Monarchy is older than any Republic. It has a structure and a history richer than the small and fractured histories of all of the republics of the world. Monarchy is a religious institution based in the Old and New Testaments. Began, blessed, and perpetuated by God Himself. One might say to accept Republicanism is an implicit denial of the sovereignty of God.
The anointing of a monarch, be it king or queen is a Sacramental Mystery of the Church. Both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have rites of anointing of monarchs as part of their Liturgikon. To say that Christianity is against monarchy in the very least seems blatantly contradictory considering this fact.
Why am I a monarchist? Because the Republican form of government is, at its core antiChristian. The basis of the Republican form of government is not God, but rather explicitly it is man who is the focus of all things.
This in and of itself is the stemming point for my despising Republicanism. It is all about ego. When we look at the documents of the founding of this country it is more than blatant in and of itself.
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…”
We the people? Can we in all honesty form a “more perfect union”? And what is this more perfect union that the founders speak of? What were the framers referring to? All they knew was the government of the British Empire. Did these men, these Insurrectionists truly believe that they could create a form of government better than a God-ordained, God blessed and God protected monarchy? This is the utter and complete egocentrism of the founders of this country.
The other issue I take is with the idea that “America was founded on Christian principles.” I take issue with the idea that non-Christians can claim to hold to Christian principles when the actively and adamantly deny Christianity. The truth of the matter is that most were deist or Unitarians (which doesn’t preclude also being christian) including Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Monro and of course Thomas Paine (remember him? The Father of the American Revolution?)…
You can easily find the info on Jefferson’s lack of Christian beliefs..he was very vocal about this and wrote many letters…but here is one bit for you: A footnote where the asterisk appears cited Meade as proof that avowed unbelievers sometimes served as vestrymen “As Bishop William Meade put it, somewhat nastily, in 1857, `Even Mr. Jefferson and [George] Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence'” (William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1857, I, p. 191).
Monroe: In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill “establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion,” Madison wrote his famous “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be come involved in the support of any religion.
Washington: In his Annals of the American Pulpit, The Reverend William B. Sprague, D.D., wrote a biographical sketch of the Reverend James Abercrombie, the other pastor of the congregation Washington attended. In this work, Sprague quoted Abercrombie in confirmation of what White had written to Mercer
One incident in Dr. Abercrombie’s experience as a clergyman, in connection with the Father of this Country, is especially worthy of record; and the following account of it was given by the Doctor himself, in a letter to a friend, in 1831 shortly after there had been some public allusion to it “With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation–always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants–she invariably being one–I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it” (From Annals of the American Pulpit, Vol. 5, p. 394, quoted by Remsberg, pp. 104-105).
Abercrombie went on to explain that he had heard through a senator that Washington had discussed the reprimand with others and had told them that “as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station” (Ibid.). Abercrombie then said that Washington “never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday” (Ibid.).
John Adams: Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.”
Benjamin Franklin, said:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion…has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble.”
and of course
The Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the U.S. Senate in 1797, read in part: “The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” The treaty was written during the Washington administration, and sent to the Senate during the Adams administration. It was read aloud to the Senate, and each Senator received a printed copy. This was the 339th time that a recorded vote was required by the Senate, but only the third time a vote was unanimous (the next time was to honor George Washington). There is no record of any debate or dissension on the treaty. It was reprinted in full in three newspapers – two in Philadelphia, one in New York City. There is no record of public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.
Those that tore us from the paternal care of His Majesty King George and the British Crown tore us from the very heart of our existence. For these reasons,as well as others, I will get into in other posts are the crux of the reasons why I consider myself to be a monarchist. I support all monarchies, regardless of religious affiliation. In all things, God save the Queen and all monarchies of the world!