What Really Lead To American Independence?

As we approach the commemoration of July 4th, this training video offers a compelling dive beneath the patriotic surface to explore the deeper currents that shaped America's founding. With clarity and conviction, it unpacks the lesser-known ideological battles that began as early as 1760—fifteen years before the Declaration of Independence—through the writings, sermons, and pamphlets that stirred a revolution in the hearts and minds of the people. Far from nostalgic reflection, this presentation challenges viewers to reclaim those principles and apply them boldly in today’s fight for liberty.

TRANSCRIPT

Generated using A.I.; please forgive any mistakes.

So again, this isn't just history for the sake of history. It is for understanding and a modern application of these ideas. Right. So we have the Declaration of Independence. This is the Betsy Ross flag, but this is not, you know, this is sometimes what we think of as the birthday of America, but this is not the birthday of America. The Constitution was formed. That would be the birthday of America as we think of it, because that is when the Constitution was formed. But at the point of the Declaration of Independence, we were 13 independent nations. England signed a treaty at the end of the war with 13 independent nations. They did not sign a treaty with one nation. They signed it with 13 independent nations. So this is an important thing because we've been brainwashed into this idea of one nation under God, right, indivisible, as an idea to be able to destroy what it was that the Founding Fathers set up into this monarchy that they want us to believe that we're under today. And so I want to talk about some little concepts that little known concepts that led to independence. This letter between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, we read what John Adams talked about what led to these things. He says, what do we mean by the revolution? The war that was no part of the revolution. It was only an effect and consequence of it. So the war was was not the part of the revolution.

It was just what the result of the revolution. Which might seem strange to a lot of us. The revolution was in the minds of the people. And this was affected from 1760 to 1775 in the course of 15 years before the before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington. That's where the revolution was. It was in the minds of the people. Getting them to accept new ideas and then to apply those ideas. The records of the 13 legislatures, the pamphlets, newspapers, and all the colonies ought to be consulted during that period to ascertain the steps by which the public opinion was enlightened and informed concerning the authority of parliament over the colonies. So this is really, really important principle for us to understand. And I hope we will internalize this because so often, you know, and I talk about it.

I don't want to be an information junkie. I'm not here just to learn something. Of course, we want to apply what we learn. But you cannot act effectively or appropriately without first learning. And that's what they did. Right. That was where the revolution was, he says. Looking at the records. What did the legislature? What did people talk about in these groups and the pamphlets and the posters that they printed?

What were the newspaper articles and the letters to the editor in the colonies? What were they talking about? These were the tools that were used to implement the revolution, as mentioned here by John. Not my favorite way to refer to the war for independence. But this is, you know, too often we think of the war like all of a sudden we didn't like being taxed. And so we started shooting at the British. That's kind of like how it's thought of generally. It's really on basic layman terms. That's not what it was. We were building, they were building the understanding of the masses.

And the masses were able to act accordingly and effectively because of the understanding that was built through their speeches, through their writings and through the public meetings and then the application of it. And so we can't underestimate the importance of education. And too often we want to skip the step of education. But education is vital to being able to have appropriate action. This is an example of one of the famous pamphlet in the 1760s starting to build this understanding amongst the people. By an Andrew Elliott. He was a pastor and he was speaking to an official governor that was appointed by England. And putting out these ideas to the people. And so that they could start to apply them. But they would write them, especially in the beginning, right?

In the 1760s. They weren't out in their face saying, yeah, we want to leave and have independence. No, they were laying the groundwork before they got to independence. You couldn't go from, hey, you know what? High taxes are lame. Let's go have a new country. No, they had to build the understanding of principles before they could even get to that point. And so in this sermon that was given to the governor, he says, but where men are grossly of a contrary character, contrary to liberty, and pervert their power to tyrannical purposes. So, right, the power of government is not for tyranny, but that's a perversion of their power. Submission, if it can be avoided, is so far from being a duty that it is a crime.

So he's saying that if we have tyranny going on around us, submission to it is a crime. That was a very bold thing to say and very much, you know, controversy. It says, it is an offense against the state of which we are members and whose happiness we ought to prefer to our chief joy. It is an offense against mankind whose rights we meanly betray. It is an offense against God who is good to all and who has appointed government for the welfare and happiness and not the destruction of his creatures. So we are offending God, we are offending our neighbor, and we are offending the society we want to be a part of when we allow and when we avoid, when we allow tyranny, when we avoid standing up to tyranny, we are offending every, you know, from God down to our neighbor when we do that. And they were, you know, that is a principle that they were laying out, that they were helping to remind the people and instill in them.

And they were helping to make these principles so that then they could start to act because before that they're like, they were just of the idea of we just have to submit to government no matter what. So another example of an article and a pamphlet that was used to rally the people.

Oh, thank you. I was looking at the chat. Sorry. So this is a, it was an, it was a article in the paper that was written by Samuel Adams. At the time it was written under a pen name. So I think this is an important thing for people to understand as well. Today it's, you know, people will say, oh, what are you hiding? You know, is your idea really good? If you have to hide it, you know, hide your name. Shouldn't you be proud of it and stand in front of it?

Well, you know, when you're, when what you say is going to lead to your death, you know, it may be some wisdom and not advertising who you are might be in play. And that's what Samuel Adams and others of the founders really explained and taught. And so in this article, the rights of the colonists, he says, if men through fear, fraud, or mistake should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. So if, if you say, if you give up one of your rights, you know, if you give up one of your, um, these rights that are given to you from God, because you're afraid of the government, uh, because you were tricked by someone or because you made a mistake, you giving up that right is invalid. Cause it, you can't give up something God gave you. It's not your, it's not your right to do that. So natural law says that it's, it's an invalid renunciation of your rights says the conspirators.

So he was not afraid to call it a conspiracy. The conspirators against our liberties are employing all their influence to divide the people partly by intimidating them for which purpose. A fleet of ships lies within gunshot of the town and the capital fort within three miles of it. Um, it is garrisoned by the King's troops and partly by arts and entry by flattering those who are pleased with flattery, forming connections with them, introducing levity, luxury, and indolence and assuring them that if they are quiet, the ministry will alter their measures. This is a trick that is used to this day where they get, you know, depending on who you are, they're either going to get you and to, to not fight them through making you afraid of fighting them. Or they will, which is usually the first thing that they try to do is to try and flatter you, give you things, offer you a station or give you, offer you money or offer you title or position or property, or make sure that your life is comfortable. If you just, you know, Hey, we get it. Just here's some things to make your life a little more comfortable. Just leave us alone and we'll take care of this for you. Don't worry about it.

Okay. If you don't see how that applies today, I, you're not paying attention. I'm surprised you're here because this is clearly, these are clearly principles, uh, that are used today to get people to not fight for the things that God gave them.

So the founders warn of the conspiracy there, again, we're not afraid to do so. And one of these pamphlets, they talk about, um, the acts that might by themselves have been upon many considerations, excused or extenuated, derived a contagious malignant mal malignancy and odium from other acts, which they are, were connected. They were not regarded according to the simple force of each, but as parts of a system of oppression. So, you know, if these things were just done in onesies and twosies, you know, you would give them an excuse and you would give them a pass and say, it's all an accident. But as these things accumulate, it is clear that they are part of a system of oppression, meaning people are working together on purpose to take away your liberty. So that was one of the founders, John Dickinson, and he was, uh, famous for his farmer's letters. Another, um, another, maybe lesser known, uh, founding father said the influence of the crown was being used to staff the administration with new favorites and King's friends who formed a secret closet party beyond the control of parliament and guided behind the scenes by the sinister combination of the Earl of Butte and the princess Dow, Dowager of Wales. Mr. George Rood, Wilkes and Lippert. So these are pamphlets that, that were published and sent abroad and letters to the editor, uh, that were helping to build the understanding, not just of natural law, but of the threats to freedom. That there was a conspiracy that was trying to take away their liberty, that it wasn't happening by accident, but there was a concerted effort to do so.

And they were not afraid to call it what it is. And these were the pamphlets that were going around and helping to build the understanding of the people so that they could, they could take effective action leading to the declaration. But of course, those, you know, in the, either in the establishment or those that, uh, accepted those things that Sam Adams talked about of those positions or the money, the luxury of life, they want to defend that. And so you had people here called Tories, people that were defending the, uh, the British crown and their actions. Uh, this one says the sophisticated members of political society rightly dismissed as rubbish. The misconceived, but genuine radical fear that the triumph of British arms and authority in America would be followed by the extinction of British liberties at home. I do not quite credit the ministry with endeavoring to enslave the colonists by system. I believe they are very happy if they can find expedience for the present moment. So of course, you know, he's, he's a negotiator for the British. And so he's trying to convince them, uh, the colonists that, Hey, this stuff, this is not, you know, there's no, there's no plot.

They're not working to try and take away your liberties. If they, they want everybody happy. So, you know, we're going to find a way to get around these things because it's not on purpose. Trust us.

And we have another example of a, a prominent, uh, lawyer in, uh, in the colonies that defended the, uh, the British against the idea of a conspiracy going on. He says, I know the good disposition of the ministry towards you. How often do we hear this today of, Oh, you know, this, this legend, he's, he's nice. You know, he was my religious leader. He was my Bishop. He was a state president and he was just really nice. And you know, he, he is not evil. How dare you accuse him of being evil? Right? I know there is no disposition either in the King, the ministry or the parliament to oppress America in any shape.

You guys are just paranoid. You know, how dare you accuse these good men of trying to hurt you? So, you know, these are the same things that, that we see today are the same tactics that were going on back then to get people to not listen to the writings and warnings of the, uh, of those that were working for, um, independence. We have another example. Uh, this one was, uh, I'm sorry. Oh, so no, I'm sorry. He wasn't a prominent lawyer. He was a member of the house of commons. Uh, this was our, our lawyer, prominent lawyer. He says that taking the whole of the acts complained of together, they do not, I think manifest a system of slavery, but may fairly be imputed to human frailty and the difficulty of the subject.

So he's, he's saying, you know, all of these things, yeah, there's lots of different examples of our rights being taken away, but it's not a system. We're not doing it on purpose. It's just because they're stupid and it's just, it's just really hard for them to understand how to solve these issues. Most of them seem to have sprung out of particular occasions or are unconnected with each other, right? This is the accidental theory of history. It's not a conspiracy. It's, these things are totally unconnected. He's saying, you know, I'm, I'm never going to support the idea of independence. All right. The declaration of independence is a bad idea because they are not working.

We have to not, you know, we, we can't give, um, malice to stupidity. We can't assign malice to stupidity, right? These guys are just dumb. They're well-meaning. They just need to have another sternly written letter explaining to them what's really going on. And then we'll be able to fix this. You know, we just need to vote harder next time. Um, we just need to, you know, be more engaged with, with these guys and, and we'll be able to fix this. All right. How often do we hear these arguments today?

And so not only do they try to poo poo, um, the idea that there is a conspiracy to take away their freedom, but they want to go after the character of those that are, um, of the, the revolutionary mindset to get people not to believe them, which is another tactic that is used, uh, regularly. So James Murray, who was a loyalist and wrote letters to individuals trying to counteract what Samuel Adams and others were doing. He says when in 1765, a crowd surrounded the elegant house of Massachusetts customs officer tore down his fences, broke his windows, and at last forced the door, destroying his furniture, stealing his honey, scattering his books and papers, and drinking the wines in his cellar to drunkenness. Then for the moment, the Tories shuddered at the power of the enraged democracy. So he's, he's saying that the, you know, the colonists are just a mob and they're, they're not actually trying to do freedom, you know, trying to implement freedom.

They're just a mob that is working to destroy people's private property and to get drunk off of the spoils of their mobocracy. Um, and another series of letters in, uh, local newspapers, we see this article that says, "Will not posterity be amazed?" cried a Tory writer when they were, they are told that the present distraction took its rise from a three penny duty on T. Will they not call it a most unaccountable frenzy and more disgraceful to the annals of America than that of witchcraft?" So essentially he's calling the colonists engaging in things and crimes that are worse than witchcraft. So going after their integrity, right? Right. Because of course, that this, this is a time where witchcraft is illegal and it is, it is, it is something that everybody recognizes as a crime that should be punished by law. And so if what they're, if what the, the colonists are doing is not defending their God given rights, that are engaged in, um, uh, basically a temper tantrum over three pennies, over three cents, then what they're doing is worse than witchcraft.

That's another one of the attacks that was on, that was against the movement for independence.

Again, in, in, in another, um, account says the committees of correspondence were dismissed as artful, crafty, and insidious practices of some evil minded and ill, ill disposed persons who intend to reduce all things to a state of tumult, discord, and confusion. Isn't we, we see that accusation against people that are, um, promoting, um, nullification and promoting independence, uh, that defend those like, you know, the founding fathers or defend those, like those that in the, uh, Southern states that said, you know what, we don't want to be a part of this anymore. We want to, to separate ourselves. Um, or you have the, the saints, uh, the latter day saints as they leave the United States, right? They're just, um, anybody that wants to separate themselves. They're just anarchists that want to just have total chaos and are against order. They were the illegal creations of a juntu to serve particular designs and purposes of their own, tending directly to sedition, civil war, and rebellion. Okay. Another example, we have Peter Oliver, who is another, uh, Tory who was an American colonist that defended the, uh, the British. He said, the authors and promoters of this desperate conspiracy. So those that claim that the King and Parliament are involved in the conspiracy to destroy Liberty, having the conduct of it derived great advantage from the difference of our intentions and theirs. So they're, they're explaining that they're trying to claim that, you know, we're just out here minding our own business and these colonists are out there trying to cause trouble. They meant only to amuse by vague expressions of attachment to the parent state and the strongest protestations of loyalty to me whilst they were preparing for a general revolt.

So they were lying about loyalty while they were preparing for revolt. The religious war now levied is manifestly carried on for the purpose of establishing an independent empire. So, you know, it's, they're not against tyranny. They're just against this tune. And so, you know, and just if you guys remember about a year or two ago, uh, the Utah governor Hawks said that the, the, the complaints against him are just because these people just have too much time on their hands. They have too much liberty. And so, because you, when you have too much liberty, you want to complain about everything. Same, basically the same argument that's going on here. And so the establishment, of course, they, they have to respond as well. So they, they poopoo conspiracy, they attack the character of the colonists, and now they want to say, okay, here's your complaints. Let's let's, let's go through the complaints of the colonists and see if they're legitimate.

They said that when Americans objected to taxation without representation, the English answered that the colonies were represented because the merchants interested in colonial trade were represented as a class in the house of commons. So they're like, what are you talking about? You, you do have representation. If a loyalist understood the American doctrine, he only conceded that reform was necessary in England. He was opposed to nullification and wished to harmonize, not to disrupt the empire. So if they, if they basically what they're saying here is that if they acquiesced, if they accepted the complaint of not having representation, they believe that this could be fixed through some more sternly written letters and we can pass some little tweaks and we can fix the situation with England. You know, there's, you know, there's no reason to have independence. The parliament was subject to the limitations of conscience and of public opinion.

The instincts of the English race would prevent oppression. So they were trying to say that, A, not only do you not have oppression now, but there is no chance of having oppression in the future. So your complaints are completely illegitimate because it's impossible for our type of people to be oppressed. It just isn't within our nature. And so again, talking about how the founding fathers, because they had an organized community. Because so you've got these right, you've got Sam Adams, who was a poor man and literally subsided on, he subsisted on the generosity of others to allow him to be able to promote the cause of liberty. He couldn't have done it without the help of others. And so you, but you have the entire money system of the British Empire and its agents in government to be able to counteract the complaints of the American colonists. But they were able to do it, of course. And this is something again, John Adams in another letter explains that the revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people, a change in their religious sentiments of their duties and obligations.

That's where it was. They were working to change these things, change the minds of the people, not just take over a government. This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments and affections of the people was the real American revolution. So he repeats to Hezekiah, the same thing that he said to Thomas Jefferson, that it was the change in the opinions and sentiments, changing the minds of the people. That was really what led to the declaration of independence and the people surrendering, you know, the people separating themselves from England. It was not just going to, you know, they didn't just go from, I don't like taxes to shooting redcoats. And so, of course, to be able to do this, they had to go on the offense. They weren't defending themselves against the accusations of the king. They went on the offense. So we have this example of another speech by Samuel Adams, where he says, if we take a retrospective, two or three years past, we shall find that what our pretended patriots, as they were styled in the court gazette, so zealously forewarned us of, has since turned out to be a fact.

So presented patriots. So there were people that would pretend, right? They would say, oh, I sympathize with you, but you guys are just going too far. He says that every art would be made use of to lull the people of this province and continent into security in order that the conspirators against our rights and liberties might carry on their schemes and complete their system of tyranny without opposition or molestation. So he's saying that there were people that were pretending to be friends of ours, while the entire time, their entire goal, they were conspirators, right? They were saying one thing, and they were involved in the conspiracy to do something different. We sympathize with you, but, hey, we need to make sure that we don't do anything that will actually work. That's what we're talking about when we talk about false opposition in the Liberty Boot Camp, right? Talking about how we have these wolves and sheep's clothing where they're pretending and they're saying all these good things. But then when it comes to the solution, it's always to empower the conspiracy.

And that's exactly what Sam Adams was warning here in 1773, right? Just three years leading up to the Declaration of Independence that we have these wolves and sheep's clothing with their direct purpose of ensuring that the people that were upset with the government were not doing anything to actually be effective in opposing them. And so what did the Crown do? They issued a, you know, they wanted to stop and they wanted to silence Sam Adams and his friends. And so we have a proclamation explaining that, hey, guys, we're going to help you out if you will just help us out. So the king is just so, you know, very lenient and he is very kind to the people. He's very patient with them, have been often frustrated and are now rendered hopeless by the influence of the same evil counsels. It only remains for those who are entrusted with supreme rule as well as for as well for the punishment of the guilty as the protection of the well affected to prove they do not bear the sword in vain. With his exigency of complicated calamities. I avail myself of the last effort within the bounds of my duty to spare the effusion of blood to offer.

And I do hereby in his majesty's name offer and promise his most gracious pardon to all persons who shall forthwith lay down their arms and return to the duties of peaceable, peaceable subjects. Accepting only the benefit of such pardon, Samuel Adams and John Hancock, whose offenses are too flagacious, flagacious, a nature to admit of any other consideration than that of consigned punishment. So everybody gets a pardon. If you just lay down your opposition and go back to being a peaceful and obedient subject, except for Sam Adams and John Hancock. Now, were they engaged in, you know, in open fire against the government? You know, were they killing anybody? No, it was because they the government was afraid of them and their words, the things that they were saying, because they knew the importance of building understanding. They knew that if they could stop, you know, put the people in jail that were giving these talks, that were writing these pamphlets, that were leading the cause, if they could put them in jail and silence them, then the rest of the people would go back to their lives and they could be bought with fear or with comfort and luxury. Okay. Okay.

And so, again, we go through these things. This isn't just history for history's sake. It's to understand how do we have a modern application for this. So what did they do? They built their own understanding. They spoke publicly. They wrote public letters. They produced and distributed pamphlets and posters. They organized opposition to specific government officials. And they rallied support for specific causes and actions.

So with modern technology, we can apply what they did with what we, the tools that we have today. We don't have to only produce pamphlets and just produce posters and just give talks in, you know, town square. There are ways that we can, you know, do this in with modern technology. But these are the principles that we follow to be able to do what the founding fathers did, to be able to preserve our liberties because they are deathly afraid of us doing those things. And so we look at these as calls to action of applying what they did and being weary of the excuses that we will hear from those that pretend to be our friends or are actually, in application, our enemies. So I hope that this was beneficial and this was something that was something new to you and some principles that we can start to apply in our efforts to be able to defend and restore liberty as we are now going into this week preparing the celebrations for Independence Day we can really understand what led to July 4th, 1776 with much better understanding and so that we can actually live according to those principles and not just have them be something that we don't even understand. As a past– you know, some of these romantic images that you see in movies today.