“I pray that the United States does not suffer unduly from its want of a monarchy.”
-His Majesty King George III of Great Britain to Parliament, 1782
In the minds of nearly every American, the Revolution is regarded as the dawning of America and the birth of the American identity. There can be no question that this historic event forever changed the course of history for Americans as well as for the English-speaking peoples in general. And yet, so much of what Americans are told about this particular time and the subsequent war are based on lies and the legacy of rebel propaganda of the period. Our cousins in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and, most importantly, Great Britain, well understand the truth. But for most Americans, that truth seems to elude them generation after generation.
This is, to a large extent, understandable. After all, the rebel faction of the war proved victorious and its legacy is apparent in nearly ever facet of American social and political life. Every endeavour the US has ever pursued, be it good or bad, has been done in the name of freedom. When the question is posed, ‘what was the American Revolution?’, almost everyone in the United States will probably give the same answer, irrespective of their political convictions.
In nearly every case, they will first tell you that it was a war between “the Americans” and “the British”. For those who are a bit more well-versed in history, they may compound their answers with the romantic aphorisms like that of Patrick Henry’s immortal “Give me liberty or give me death”, or Nathan Hale’s “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country”. Or, perhaps they might invoke the words and deeds of “The Founding Fathers”, rife with all the usual programmed buzzwords such as “liberty” and “rights” that we grew up hearing but were never taught the cultural and political context in which those words were used.
But the American Revolution was not a war between America and Great Britain, and the concept of liberty was not at all the reason behind the war, which the rebel population among colonials, not the British Empire, actively instigated. The truth is that it was a civil war, our first one, as a matter of fact. It was a war not between American and Britain, but one between rebel and Loyalist, Whig and Tory, and, more specifically, revolutionary and Traditionalist. American Loyalists, or, “Tories” as they were often called (as if this was supposed to even be a pejorative that would cause offence) fought to preserve their heritage and traditions in more than 150 fighting units. In the South, where loyalism was even stronger, there were 26 units that fought with distinction.
All of the rhetoric we were raised on was nothing more than the legacy of rabble, fueled by an assortment of violent upstarts, landowning opportunists, Freemasons, Deists, and radicalised egalitarian agitators who organised and directed illiterate crowds of thugs and tavern drunkards like the infamous Sons of Liberty to terrorise the ever larger population of their neighbours who wished to remain loyal to their King. Current history tells us very little of the burning of Loyalist homes, as in the case of royal governor Thomas Hutchinson, who, along with his family, narrowly escaped with his life after a mob of unruly miscreants surrounded his home and demanded that he denounce the Stamp Act, a fair and legitimate act to collect debt for military intervention during a time when our militias were at the mercy of French and Indian terror.
The Sons of Liberty succeeded in brainwashing large numbers of uneducated and mostly illiterate crowds from the scraps of society. Rarely, if ever, do American schoolchildren learn of Thomas Brown and the Loyalist cause in Georgia, and of the King’s Rangers, the Loyalist company that he commanded in the Siege of Savannah and the First and Second Battles of Augusta. Perhaps most importantly, we forget all of the horrors of the ghastly and barbarous practice of tarring and feathering, which the Sons of Liberty and their supporters employed frequently on innocent people for no other reason than that they would not denounce their King and rightful Sovereign.
How many of us are familiar with those who sadly fell victim to this brutal form of disgusting torture, those like Captain William Smith of Norfolk, Virginia, who was stripped naked, tarred, feathered, and mercilessly thrown into the harbour by an angry mob of drunken, radical social misfits. Smith survived, although barely. He was quoted as saying, “they dawbed my body and face all over with tar and afterwards threw feathers on me.” Current revolutionary history will tell us that these acts were carried out as a reaction to “British oppression”.
What they don’t tell you is that many of its poor victims were simply good-natured royal subjects that had notified the proper authorities of illegal activity happening among dissidents, usually in the form of smuggling, which many “Founders’ like John Hancock were notorious for taking part in. Other victims, like John Malcolm, were tarred and feathered more than once, and then threatened to be hanged and have their ears cut off. Malcolm, like so many other Loyalists, was eventually forced out of the colonies, making a new home in England.
Indeed, the very idea of separating from the Crown would have never crossed the minds of even the most dissenting colonists prior to the Seven Years War, or, as Americans know it, the French and Indian War. In fact, unbeknownst to today’s average American, separation wasn’t even on the agenda when the war broke out. That idea, as in all revolutions, grew out of a general wave of revolutionary fervour that began to snowball once the first shots were fired. In these cases, history has shown us, as in all revolutions that have occurred, mild pushes for change become simply not enough, and swiftly turn into rabid demands for social upheaval.
Freedom is not enough. Liberty is not enough. Ideas followed by radical action in the name of equality only grow more radical as time goes by, and, as history as also shown us, it doesn’t take very long for that to happen. That is, unless, a more moderate force obstructs its path and cuts it down to size, making it more sensible and easily digestible for the average working person, who simply wants to live and work with as minimal strife as possible.
And, despite all of the horrors, looting, and theft inflicted upon Loyalists in the colonies (something else Americans learn virtually nothing about), we were certainly blessed to have been spared the ugliest conditions of revolutionary terror, as was the case in Paris just a few years after our revolution had ended, a revolution, which, has been cited by many historians as being a sort of proto-communist one, and, rightfully so.
Make no mistake, the tragedies of the French Revolution were a direct result of the wave of radical hysteria that had taken hold of the Western world as a result of the American Revolution. It should be noted that Thomas Jefferson was in Paris during the Storming of the Bastille, and he played a significant role in drafting the Declaration of the Rights of Man.
Jefferson witnessed many of the atrocities of the gruesome Reign of Terror, and, although he is said to have not supported the violence, he certainly never spoke out against it as many of his colleagues did. And when the French ambassador, the notorious Jacobin, Edmond Charles-Genet arrived in the newly-formed republic and immediately began recruiting Americans to capture British ships and rearm them as privateers against the British, thereby endangering the neutrality between the U.S and Britain, Jefferson wrote to him requesting that he cease all endeavours, but only after President Washington demanded that he do so.
This is of no surprise, of course. Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican, the radical leftists of their day, and he viewed the concept of revolution in much the same way that later figures like Lenin and Trotsky did, in that it should be worldwide, permanent, and rabidly anti-aristocratic. This is precisely why he neither objected nor petitioned to intervene when Genet was forming Democratic-Republican societies all over the US and perverting its citizens with the vile, ultra-egalitarian, proto-Marxist ideals of Jacobinism.
This is not to suggest that Thomas Jefferson is in any significant way on the same level as Lenin or Trotsky. Jefferson, himself cut from aristocratic cloth, and a slave owner, could by no means be compared to the far more sinister Robespierre or Saint-Just. But the idea of separation from the Crown, and thereby separation from all ties to the Mother Country, laid the groundwork that would eventually separate Americans on an even deeper level from the parent state, one that would strip them of their old collective identity for generations to come.
It must also be remembered that, as a staunch Democratic-Republican and Jacobin sympathiser, he was fully aware of this, and thought it necessary. Jefferson, of course was not alone. Indeed, most of the Founders, save for a few, saw the revolution as a continuation of events, and this idea goes back at least a century before during the Glorious Revolution of 1688. When one begins to understand this and sees the Revolution the way it was seen during its time through the eyes of those who actually instigated it, and not merely through the lens of life in the current century, it is easy to see certain facts, ugly as they may be, that we can never shy away from. It begins to make sense why the Connecticut Navy had a ship named the Oliver Cromwell, or why the rebels had such ardent support from prominent Whigs in Parliament like Charles Fox, who was known for frequently wearing blue to parliamentary sessions to irk the Tories.
We should never disregard our pre-revolutionary history, for we were still Americans prior to the Revolution. We simply had a monarch, and, as every American colonial at one time understood it, monarchy represented authority, stability, and, above all, tradition. Republics were and still are breeding grounds for democratic mob rule. They rally the people but for a brief and all-too-often miserable duration under an official but seedy cabinet, lacking in the transcendence and lifelong tenure that monarchical societies offer.
And really, they are much more than mere “societies”. They are organically designed models of civilisation whereby the cultural symbol of the nation is a strong figurehead, the parent, and the people are its subjects who, on a cultural and national level, are bound by kindred blood, folkways, and tradition. This idea transcends all others because it is something that is naturally ingrained in us as human beings. For the monarch is a reflection of its people, the soul of the people, and they are not cycled through dirty elections where the only things delivered to its people are lies, national disservice, and economic turmoil.
Americans since the Revolution have bought into the lie that our previous political structure was one of total subjugation, as if the constitutional monarchy of the British Empire were akin to the Saudi Dynasty. It is beyond absurd, almost to the point of laughter when one really thinks about it. Still, we fail to even question it, it is almost prescribed to us, force-fed to us as fact, as true as the sky is blue or water is wet. We forget all to easily that we have an entire history that preceded the Revolution in which we were once loyal subjects and fought for our Sovereign, our race, and our ways of life, forgetting that we still had a constitution and all the rights attached to it. And therein lies another ill of revolution, the whitewashing of history that always follows without fail.
It is drilled into the head of every American from the time they can form thoughts that we had no representation in Parliament. Yet again, this suggests that every single American colonial were out in the streets clamouring for “no taxation without representation!” Lies. All lies. They tell us that we had no rights before independence, as if we had been slaves to a maniacal order. That, too is a lie.
So-called patriots, educators, and national leaders paint for us a picture of economic strife, another lie. By the mid-seventeenth century, the American colonies enjoyed outstanding economic growth, so much, in fact, that the GNP multiplied several times in a period of less than one hundred years. Historians have even suggested estimate that American colonists may have enjoyed the highest standard of living in the world by the time of the war broke out. Contrary to what contemporary history teaches us, Americans had a far better standard of living than those in the Mother Country. And, if revolution and war were so necessary, why then did the other nations within the Anglosphere not follow the same violent course?
To suggest all of these things (which are all historical truths, whether one likes it or not) instantly brands one a traitor in the eyes of most Americans, be they liberal or conservative, left or right. The Crown was the bad guy, and we, the good guys. That is the story we’re forced to believe. They could not possibly conceive of an accurate analysis of our history, which revealed the American Revolution as a being an anti-traditionalist Masonic plot to sever our ties to our monarch and bind us to a real kind of slavery, one where the banks and enemies of morality were at the helm. There were fifty-six signers of the Declaration of Independence, and ten of them were noted Freemasons. Thirty-nine signed the Constitution and out of those, twelve were Freemasons. And let us not forget that there were around thirty rebel generals in the Continental Army who were also Freemasons. This, of course, opens up a whole other can of worms, and this piece is not dedicated to Freemasonry or its direct link to the revolution, despite its significance.
There are, naturally, certain cultural attributes which can never be broken, no matter how much revolution attempts to whitewash a people’s story. Our national anthem as well as countless other patriotic songs are British, with only the lyrical content altered. “The Star-Spangled Banner” is “To Anacreon in Heaven”, “My Country ‘Tis of Thee” is “God Save the Queen (King)”, the British national anthem, and there are numerous other lesser-known tunes, too many to even list. Our national colours are still red, white, and blue, the soul of our historic architecture is Georgian and Victorian, and, let us not forget the most obvious thing, our language, perhaps the most fundamental element, aside from race, that culturally binds a people. Language is more than just mere words that aid us in our communication. There is indeed a divine and very sacred component of language that all peoples share. We not only speak in English, we think in English, we see in English, we hear in English, we dream in English.
If we, as Traditionalists, can agree that our country is a ticking time-bomb waiting to go off, and that we are on the cusp of turning a major page in the story of our people, then we must begin to view our history in the context of a tribe and not solely a nation separate from the one we were birthed from. Bear in mind, when compared to other countries and their histories, ours is not very long; we are a very young country. Therefore, when we consider the bigger picture, we really don’t have much to be nostalgiac about, especially if we accept that our country is on the verge of balkanisation, and that we will doubtless enter a time when thinking tribally under the umbrella of folk, faith, and Tradition will be crucial to our survival.
We are members of the Anglosphere. We were born of it. In fact, we were, at one time, the Mother Country’s most favoured and adored child. Of course, none of this is to suggest that we should all rally to petition the Queen to reinstate us a series of Crown colonies, as one progressive malcontent recently did when he wrote a letter to Her Majesty asking just that, after having become disillusioned with the Republican presidential candidates. What I will urge our people in this country to do, however, is to begin to see ourselves, Americans, as we actually are, an Anglocentric people, a people bound by tribe, language, customs, and certain inescapable and undeniable traditions, people whose story, though unique, still exists as one within the Anglosphere, and a highly significant one at that.
If anything, we can agree that the British monarch is still a cultural symbol for us, and one that we should most definitely rally under, if only in symbolic terms. For the monarch is our true symbol, and representative of our natural state. The monarch is one who thinks in the long term, not the short term, which is what politicians do, and this is what real leadership focus is. One thing can be certain, should we begin to think in these terms, in reality, we will be that much closer to binding once more ourselves to Tradition, and therefore, to our true nature.