Posted under Christianity & Culture & Political Philosophy & Religion
This day in 1649 marks the advent of republican government in England. Some might ask what this has to do with America, but it’s important to American heritage as well because it set the stage for our own nation’s constitutional development. At this point in English history, Oliver Cromwell and the Puritans successfully did away with the monarchy and established a republic in its place. You’d think the Puritan-hating liberals would be thankful for this tradition, but they always seem to take our republican form of government for granted.
So lift your glass or bottle in commemoration of this anniversary. This is definitely something we ought to celebrate. The English Commonwealth was the first (and only) period in which England had a written constitution. During this time the rule of law governed, not the “divine right” of absolutist monarchs. The influence of this upon the U.S. Constitution is obvious. In our current day in which the office of president is viewed as something akin to a monarch, we do well to celebrate and remember this part of our nation’s Anglo-Protestant heritage.
RedPhillips on 30 Jan 2009 at 10:42 pm #
There are a lot of paleo Cromwell haters as well as closeted monarchists. This should be fun.
There is a conservative case to be made for an unwritten constitution. This would be an interesting debate to have.
Weaver on 30 Jan 2009 at 11:05 pm #
Some of us both hate Cromwell and aren’t too fond of monarchy, haha.
But, it’s just history. I’ll raise my cup of tea in honor of dumping absolute monarchs in the harbour*!
*instead of dumping tea.
Patroon on 30 Jan 2009 at 11:40 pm #
Ugghh…don’t remind me of Cromwell. He was a sick little bastard.
Kirt Higdon on 31 Jan 2009 at 12:51 am #
We Americans have had our own Cromwell – Lincoln. But we were not fortunate enough to have a restoration. Merry England got to be merry again for a short while under the Stuarts but these were dumped by the emerging Protestant oligarchy and replaced by Dutch and German pretenders. From there, Britain progressed first to world empire, then to socialist welfare state. The US is on a similar trajectory, lagging a couple of generations behind the mother country.
roho on 31 Jan 2009 at 1:53 am #
Cromwell was a nut-case and should have been a jacobin Frenchman.
Stonewall on 31 Jan 2009 at 2:30 am #
Yeah, because we all know how much the Puritans had in common with French revolutionaries…
*rolls eyes*
RedPhillips on 31 Jan 2009 at 5:52 am #
Cromwell was certainly no Jacobin, but he was a revolutionary of sorts. But I do think it is important for us Protestants to stand up for America’s “Anglo-Protestant” heritage.
Kirt Higdon on 31 Jan 2009 at 6:11 am #
The Puritans had a lot in common with the French revolutionaries even apart from from the regicidal and anti-aristocratic impulses of both. (They had that in common with the Communists as well.) But both also had the emphasis on “virtue”, hard work, not having any fun, and spreading this dreary life style by brutal military force. Reminds one not only of the French revolutionary Jacobins but of the contemporary ones of the recent Bush regime.
At one time, there was a group intent on creating a “Puritan Party” in California and one of them asked me if I wanted to join. I replied that the Puritans were the ones under whose regime it was forbidden to drink, dance, or celebrate Christmas and since I enjoyed doing all three of those things, I did not think I would make a very good Puritan.
As far as America’s “Anglo-Protestant” heritage is concerned, I always thought that the cavaliers of the Confederacy were the most noble example of that. But maybe I’m just into the romance of lost causes.
Weaver on 31 Jan 2009 at 6:34 am #
Cromwell was only one Puritan though. They tolerated responsible drinking but not drunkeness, at least in the northern US.
Personally though, I wouldn’t mind prohibition applied at the local level, meaning in a community I lived in. The Drink doesn’t appeal to me, but it destroys some.
And dancing today has in part devolved into something like foreplay and/or anarchic individualist expression… And I often ramble about virtue.
Even traditional rigidity like this interests me. I’d love to hear those men speak on their ideals, even if I wouldn’t likely agree on parts since they aren’t Christian.
Kirt Higdon on 31 Jan 2009 at 6:47 am #
I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. Beating up 15 year old girls is definitely not my thing, even if they are not religious, and these girls were religious. But you’d definitely make a good Cromwellian – or member of the Taliban for that matter.
Weaver on 31 Jan 2009 at 8:17 am #
Yes, well it’s fun to make emotional posts I suppose… That’s very Cromwellian of you divide the issue as such.
But if the emotion subsides and a moment of clarity shines down, consider that I wasn’t praising harming young girls but that there is more involved with the issue than causing harm.
I take it you’re opposed to prisons, the spanking of young children, and perhaps fines as well? (Obviously you support such things – so I mean this rhetorically to show that a degree of punishment can be justified). Man is fallen.
Weaver on 31 Jan 2009 at 8:33 am #
To put another way, it’s of course possible to like a part of a proposal while rejecting another part.
Anyway, that misunderstanding aside: the parts I like:
1. in the US it used to be acceptable, or so I’ve heard, for teachers or other parents to pop a child for misbehaving. Mild popping within a healthy, real community appears benign to me. Though of course only individualism may rule in cosmopolitan, transient societies.
2. the rigid rule of law, something Cromwellian I’d say, can create a sort of slave mentality among people. There ought to be a policy rather of subsidiarity and a degree of principled “original intent” and “morally correct” interpretation with regard to certain minor issues.
3. This part interests me, and I wish to learn of the history and justifications of this:
Curiosity is surely no crime.
Weaver on 31 Jan 2009 at 8:59 am #
The Taliban I have particular issue with for destroying historical artifacts.
I also have issue with the Spanish for what they did to the Incas especially, as well as the Aztecs, and issue with some of Christianity’s spread through Europe.
Though at the same time it’s undeniably Christian to fight against evil.
Sean Scallon on 31 Jan 2009 at 4:50 pm #
If we’re going to celebrate Republican virtue I can think of better Republics, like Rome for example, than Cromwell’s military dictatorship. It was Republic only in the sense it was a government with no king, not because it was brought forth a wellspont of free speech, new ideas and open expression. You were far more likley to find that under Charles I. What does it say that after Cromwell died English citizens were more than happy to restore the Stuarts?
Stonewall on 31 Jan 2009 at 5:24 pm #
Kirt:
Your perception of the Puritans is extremely flawed and seems to be based more on myths from popular culture rather than what actually happened in history. Hence, your comment above where you said:
“I replied that the Puritans were the ones under whose regime it was forbidden to drink, dance, or celebrate Christmas and since I enjoyed doing all three of those things, I did not think I would make a very good Puritan.”
While it may be true that they didn’t celebrate Christmas, the Puritans were not against drinking. I have no idea where that idea came from in the first place. The anti-alcohol movement was an outgrowth of theological liberalism in 19th century America, not something derived from the Puritans. In fact, the New England Puritans produced and traded rum. They didn’t have a problem with anyone having a pint, so long as it was done in moderation.
The term “Puritan” does not mean puritanical. It was a term used to describe their beliefs regarding the regulative principle of worship. They wanted to reform the Church of England and secure religious liberty–something the monarchy didn’t like very much.
Stonewall on 31 Jan 2009 at 5:55 pm #
Sean:
I’m sure there are indeed better republics than the English Commonwealth, but Rome didn’t have a direct impact upon America’s heritage the same way. You can rail against Cromwell all you want, but the impact of this particular republic upon America’s development cannot be denied.
Monarchy is a pagan concept and ought to be opposed at all costs. It disturbs me more that people on this forum are defending it. And what is so great about the Stuart kings? James I was a sodomite and a tyrant who tried to stamp out religious minorities (namely Calvinists). These abuses carried over into the reign of Charles I, who certainly didn’t allow freedom of speech and religious liberty for the Reformed churches.
As for what happened after Cromwell’s death, I think it’s a stretch to assume that *everyone* celebrated the return of the monarchy. Ask people like John Bunyan if they enjoyed the “glorious restoration.”
Weaver on 31 Jan 2009 at 9:04 pm #
You say monarchy was pagan, but it’s justifiable Biblically obviously.
A monarch who rules over multiple peoples might be unBiblical though, since a king is meant to be chosen from among one’s own people.
You mean because the monarchs were viewed as having a divine right to rule or because it was continued from pre-Christian Europe?
Harold Crews on 31 Jan 2009 at 9:48 pm #
The Puritans were keen only of their own religious liberty. The New England colonies had an established Puritan church. They did not hesitate to suppress other Christian traditions where they held power. Believe me, as a Catholic and someone who believes in a republican form of government I would not have wanted to live to either in Cromwell’s England or New England. To me it would have been the worst tyranny.
Stonewall on 31 Jan 2009 at 10:35 pm #
Weaver:
How is monarchy justified biblically? That is not the original form of government within the ancient Israelite community. Only later did God give them over to monarchy because the people wanted to “be like the other nations.”
Stonewall on 31 Jan 2009 at 10:40 pm #
Harold:
No doubt I too, as a Baptist, would have been kicked out of New England just as I would have been driven out of Catholic Maryland as well. Establishmentarianism was the rule of the day during that time. However, I don’t see what this has to do with whether England should have adopted a republican form of government. Establishmentarianism and religious intolerance would have existed regardless of whether there was a republic or a monarchy.
Harold Crews on 01 Feb 2009 at 8:23 pm #
Simply because Cromwell was against the King hardly makes him a republican. If that were the case the Communist would have been republican. Cromwell was a dictator. He disbanded the Parliment for goodness sake.
Although sadly there were no shortage of Catholic countries that did not allow free exercise of religion; you are mistaken about Maryland. The Maryland Toleration Action of 1649 recognised freedom of religion for all trinitarian Christians. The Act was primarily for the protection of Catholics in Maryland particularly in the face of growing Puritan power. The population was primarily Protestant. Cromwell by the way revoked the Act.
Stonewall on 01 Feb 2009 at 9:35 pm #
Harold:
There’s a huge difference between religious toleration and religious liberty. They are not one and the same. The fact that you use those terms interchangeably tells me that you really don’t understand the history of this subject. In point of fact, there is no “free exercise” with religious toleration.
Therefore, your point about Maryland’s Toleration Act is moot. That they allowed Protestants to exist in Maryland doesn’t mean that they had religious liberty. The reason the Puritans migrated to Maryland in the first place is because they were kicked out of Anglican Virginia. Harsh treatment of different denominations was standard practice, regardless of who was in power.
Virginia also exercised “religious toleration,” but that didn’t stop the Anglican establishment from throwing Baptists into prison for preaching without licenses issued by the state. Yet Virginia was not at all unique in that regard. That was the status quo in virtually all of the colonies.
Rail against Cromwell all you want, but religious intolerance would have existed no matter which side won the civil war. As I said before, establishmentarianism and religious persecution were the norm in the 17th century. Whether England was a republic or a monarchy had no bearing upon that.
Dostoevsky on 01 Feb 2009 at 9:42 pm #
My own leanings are toward localism/provincialism/agrarianism — in other words, I’m something of a small-scale democrat.
That said, I think there’s something unhealthy about acting as if monarchy is the root of all evil as well — a pernicious theme which got us to where we are today. My guess is the reason we don’t have real democracy in America is precisely because capital-d Democracy has been invested with more metaphysical significance than it actually warrants. It’s just a *system*, for Heaven’s sake.
I’m hardly a libertarian, but a libertarian paper I recently read strikes me as having an apropos comment:
“the crucial question is not whether a government is democratic but whether its enactments are reliably just.
If they are, its being undemocratic is no objection — while if they are not, its being undemocratic is no excuse.”
As to this question:
“How is monarchy justified biblically? That is not the original form of government within the ancient Israelite community. Only later did God give them over to monarchy because the people wanted to ‘be like the other nations.’ ”
Well, so what if it is not the original form, or if the new form (monarchy) came about because of the vanity (sins) of the people?
We only went from running about naked to the wearing of clothes as a result of the Fall — should we perhaps form yet another new faction of marginalized conservatives, the paleonudist movement?
More seriously — could a republican movement in ancient Israel have used the argument “this is not the original form of government” as a justification to overthrow the House of David?
To emphasize, I mean all this in goodwill & good humor — frankly it’s no great skin off my teeth if somebody admires Cromwell and wants to toast him. I’m of the school that shrugs and says monarchy is good for some peoples, aristocracy for others, and democracies for others. Different cultures are more suited to different systems.
I’m not interested in defending monarchy so much as I am objecting to the demonization of monarchy qua monarchy, which I think leads to deeper problems. How can we accept the authority of the King we haven’t seen, when we categorically reject the authority of any and every king we have seen?
Dostoevsky on 01 Feb 2009 at 9:52 pm #
“How is monarchy justified biblically? That is not the original form of government within the ancient Israelite community.”
So since the wearing of clothes only came about as a result of human sinfulness, should we return to the original form?
Are we talking about paleonudism here?
Stonewall on 01 Feb 2009 at 11:00 pm #
Dostoevsky:
Your question makes no sense. We still exist in a sinful state. Unless I missed something, we haven’t experienced the Parousia.
Harold Crews on 02 Feb 2009 at 3:32 am #
Then frankly “Stonewall” I’m not sure I get your point. Cromwell was no more a proponent of religious liberty than the monarch he deposed and killed. He disregarded and disbanded Parliment when it suited him. He committed mass murder in Ireland. And for all this you regard Cromwell as some sort of republican? Republicanism involves a great deal more than opposition to monarchy.
As for the difference between religious toleration and the free exercise you are correct. But surely toleration must precede the free exercise. Although to be sure it doesn’t necessarily follow toleration. But Cromwell opposed them both. At least in this matter he was certainly opposed to republicanism.
Don’t allow your zeal for Calvinism to cause a knee jerk support of anyone and everyone who advocated Calvinism.
Dostoevsky on 02 Feb 2009 at 3:45 am #
Actually I don’t understand your response, but I admit I was being a bit flippant. Just to keep from being misunderstood, I might point out that my own leanings are more toward localism/agrarianism, etc.
In other words, I’m pretty much inclined to be a (obviously small-d) democrat. And I’m not particularly interested in joining the pile-on of Cromwell, either.
But I do think it significant to point out the implications of demonizing monarchy qua monarchy. It’s not clear to me how we can claim to acknowledge the authority of the King we haven’t seen when we categorically declare that each and every king we have seen are illegitimate tyrants whose heads should be lopped off.
If somebody had justified a republican rebellion against the House of David on the basis of getting back to “the original form”, would such a revolt been legitimate?
In any event I don’t get the sense that Christians of the New Testament regarded seceding from the Roman Empire to establish a republican government as a priority. Nor did any of the prophets of the Old Testament, to my knowledge, work toward the overthrow and replacement of monarchies by a republican system. Not even the corrupt monarchs.
So even if I agreed with enthusiasm for Cromwell, that gives no reason to make a sweeping and universal generalization about monarchy = godlessness and republicanism = godliness.
Again, this is not because I’m a closet Jacobite but because I think it’s investing too much importance in worldly political systems. The point is not the system but the results; one system might seem to be more appropriate for one culture, another system for another.
I agree that monarchy is not somehow biblically-mandated as the sole legitimate government. But it is also flatly wrong is the claim — and I may be reading in more than was actually said — that republicanism is biblically-mandated as the solely-legitimate form of government. Either one may be appropriate, depending on the circumstances.
I only bother saying all this as somebody who unhesitatingly favors decentralized democracy as the appropriate system for America. The only way we will ever have true democracy is if Americans stop thinking of democracy as if it were some sort of divinely-sanctioned system.
The Constitution would be in a lot better shape today if it were regarded less as some sort of quasi-sacred mystical document and more as a straightforward, down-to-earth compact, a treaty which simply says what it means.
Dostoevsky on 02 Feb 2009 at 3:51 am #
Much simpler & shorter:
If you celebrate the defeat of Charles I because he you believe he was a tyrant, fine.
If you celebrate the defeat of Charles I simply because he was a king… that’s problematic. As would be the assumption that the words “tyrant” and “king” are synonyms.
Stonewall on 02 Feb 2009 at 5:15 am #
Harold:
Frankly, the Irish deserved every swipe of the sword they received. It was not mass murder at all. You’re not telling all of the story. Funny you left out the part about how the Irish were viciously persecuting Protestants: murdering hundreds, stripping them naked in the streets, raping their wives, brutalizing women and children…the list goes on. In fact, the Irish murdered far more Protestants during that period than the other way around.
Ireland was so unstable that the country itself was in shambles. Moreover, it was necessary for Cromwell to put the Irish in their place and restore order, lest the whole of Britain be subject to foreign invasion through Ireland. After the Irish rabble were dealt with and order restored, Ireland was brought into a bit of a golden era in which they prospered greatly. If anything, the Irish ought to thank Cromwell from bringing them out of that wicked manner of savagery.
Certainly we can have a principled debate regarding how this was to be carried out, but please don’t insult my intelligence by portraying the Irish as a bunch of persecuted saints who did no wrong. Quite the opposite is true. I had an Irish Catholic teacher in high school who did exactly the same thing. Only years later when I read the true history of what happened did I realize how badly Cromwell has been distorted by his detractors.
Furthermore, I fail to see what a discussion about religious liberty has to do with republican government. Where is it written that there must be religious liberty in order for a republic to exist? A republic can be just as tyrannical as a monarchy, I’ll grant you that. And since you’re so focused on religious liberty issues, then you obviously don’t understand the reason for my post in the first place.
I’m not saying the English Commonwealth was perfect or that Cromwell was without fault. That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m simply celebrating the advent of republican government in England which was a vital stepping stone toward our own republic here in the United States. Okay, you hate Cromwell. We get it. But that’s no reason to defend a corrupt, tyrannical monarchy a la the Stuarts.
“Don’t allow your zeal for Calvinism to cause a knee jerk support of anyone and everyone who advocated Calvinism.”
I’ll respond to this patronizing comment only by saying that my Calvinist beliefs are not what’s at issue here. I’m sorry that you’ve chosen to make it an issue. I’ve never said that Cromwell and his allies were perfect or that they represented a perfect model of civil government. I’m simply saying that this development in English law–”Lex Rex”– is worthy of celebration.
If you want to question people’s motives and bring their religious beliefs into the discussion, then be my guest. But I refuse to be a part of that. It’s not appropriate nor does it serve the best interests of this forum.
Stonewall on 02 Feb 2009 at 5:25 am #
Dostoevsky:
I never said that republicanism equals godliness. Nor did I ever say that all forms of monarchy are inherently unacceptable. Certainly the absolutist form of monarchy is not good and ought to be avoided, but I’m not one who favors an outright rebellion just for the sake of overthrowing monarchy. If a monarchy is to be removed, then it ought to be done by legitimate lesser magistrates.
Furthermore, I never said that republicanism is biblically-mandated or that it’s the only acceptable form of government. As Calvin pointed out in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” there are a variety of constitutions out there and there isn’t necessarily one form of government which makes a nation more godly than any other. That being said, Calvin did say that he preferred that power not be concentrated in the hands of one man or a few, citing mankind’s total depravity. I concur with Calvin.
Harold Crews on 02 Feb 2009 at 3:13 pm #
“Stonewall” I never defended the Stuart King. I didn’t even call his killing a murder for goodness sake.
Why were there Protestants in Ireland that were persecuted? Because Ireland was invaded by the English! I’m sure the Irish are full of gratitude for the generousity of their benefactors. Further I only said he committed mass murder in Ireland. There is nothing I said that characterised Ireland as full of saints. You are the one who is making general characterisations and mischaracterisations. I’m sure the Huns were bayotting Belgium babies also.
I only mentioned what I assume to be zeal for Calvinism as a motivation because that is about the only thing I can think of to praise Cromwell. Your apparent hatred of the Irish seems to justify my imputation of motive.
If Cromwell was an advance towards republicanism, I suppose the French Revolution or the Russian Revolution could also be regarded as such.
You carry a strange moniker for someone defending a tradition whose offspring did so much to crush your adopted namesakes hopes and aspirations. Puritanism did not die out. It transmuted.
If you happen to be Tom from Greensboro, North Carolina, I hope this exchange doesn’t put a damper on our friendship. I still want to work together. It’s just that Puritanism isn’t commonly found in conservative thought so I’m wondering if you might be him.
Sean Scallon on 02 Feb 2009 at 3:53 pm #
Monarchy is a pagan concept
You ought to mention that to God the next you pray to him so instead of praying to Christ the King, we can pray to Christ the President.
I hate to break it to you but heaven is not a democracy. Lucifer found that out the hard way.
Kirt Higdon on 02 Feb 2009 at 4:16 pm #
Cromwell was a brutal and aggresive revolutionary dictator and the Puritans are in the same league as the Jacobins, Communists, and the Shia revolutionaries of Iran under Khomeini. Overthrow of monarchies always seems to lead to a net loss of freedom and the imposition of heavy state-sponsored social controls. Often it also leads to aggresive foreign wars as the “republicans” see themselves as bearers of a universalist ideology to be imposed on the rest of mankind.
The idea that the Irish ought to thank Cromwell for his brutal treatment of their country reminds me of the odious Bill O’Reilly ranting against the ingratitude of the Iraqis for all that the virtuous US republicans have done to Iraq. This is history written by the most thuggish of winners.
Monarchy (and specifically hereditary monarchy) is the most natural and traditional of all forms of government. It is the natural development of patriarchy (rule of the father) and is prayed for by all Christians – “Our Father . . . thy kingdom come . . .” As for monarchy being specifically pagan, what would the Greeks be called, they who identified the various forms of government and experimented with all of them? What would the Romans be called with their early republic? These people were as pagan as any who lived under ancient monarchies.
Dostoevsky on 02 Feb 2009 at 4:20 pm #
“I never said that republicanism equals godliness. Nor did I ever say that all forms of monarchy are inherently unacceptable…. I never said that republicanism is biblically-mandated or that it’s the only acceptable form of government. As Calvin pointed out in his “Institutes of the Christian Religion,” there are a variety of constitutions out there and there isn’t necessarily one form of government which makes a nation more godly than any other.”
OK, then — I was reading in more than you intended.
Thus I have nothing else to say, except to chime in that hopefully we can all maintain some measure of goodwill here in this controversial contention — charity manifested in chivalric sentiment toward adversaries, if nothing else. Nobody’s going to cause a 180 degree change in anybody’s opinion vis-a-vis Oliver Cromwell one way or the other via heated vitriol.
Not trying to be self-righteous, I hardly have any business lecturing anybody on playing nice. But in this case we should try to maintain … I dunno, the argumentative equivalent of a chivalric or Just War atmosphere. Let’s be careful not to let our English Civil War re-enactment degenerate into the Total War mindset.
Filmer on 02 Feb 2009 at 7:38 pm #
Here is what I think we know from the Bible.
Monarchy was not the ideal for Israel. God consented to it because they asked for it. It is not a total leap to then generalize that and argue that monarchy is not ideal for other societies as well, but the Bible does not specifically say that. (What did Israel have before that? They essentially had rule by wise men [judges] and a system of subsidiary tribes.) The fact that Israel wanted a monarchy so they could be like other countries does suggest that there is a certain natural order tendency towards it. Perhaps God wanted Israel to be unique in that respect. Objectively, rule by wise men (certainly not democracy) seems a choice less fraught with peril, IMO.
What the Bible most certainly does not endorse and seems to militate against is the Lockean notion of consent and contract. Kirt is right that the authority of government does not spring from consent, but it arises from the dominant and subordinate relationships that are inherent in the family. The family, not the individual, is the primordial political unit.
I, like Stonewall, am a Baptist, but nothing in the Bible requires religious liberty, and arguably much in the Bible suggests otherwise. If someone argues by extrapolation from Israel that monarchy is bad, then why would he not argue by extrapolation that religious liberty is bad? (That is a rhetorical question and is not aimed at Stonewall.) I have always thought it a mistake for Baptists to enshrine as dogma what is basically a political, not a Biblical or theological, question.
When we look into the past, whether Cromwell or the Irish, it is important that we keep in mind the advice we give people who jump on the Founders for owning slaves. People have to be judged in the context of their times. Cromwell does not seem particularly brutal by the standards of the times, nor the Irish more savage than other similar lands at the time.
Kirt Higdon on 03 Feb 2009 at 11:58 am #
I’d like to raise a caveat about the oft-heard phrase “People have to be judged in the context of their times”. Hitler does not strike me as “particularly brutal by the standards of the times”, considering that the standards of the 20th century were also set by such killers of millions and tens of millions as Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot and (lest we forget) Roosevelt, Truman, and Churchill. Do we want every mass murderer to serve as a moral alibi for every other mass murderer who happens to be a contemporary?
Weaver on 03 Feb 2009 at 3:43 pm #
I was away for a few days.
I find it interesting to meet a Cromwell supporter and would like to read more in his defense.
However, sometimes I think this was a mistake and we’d be better if we’d parted from Britain more amicably, and perhaps much later:
When you’re born into a country as upside-down and suicidal as America today, you look back to figure where it all went wrong, where the roots got severed.
Btw, Locke opposed the American secession interestingly enough, though Hume actually favored it.
Stonewall on 07 Feb 2009 at 1:24 am #
Harold:
I don’t hate the Irish. That’s absurd. I’m proud of my Scots-Irish heritage and I think the Irish deserve to be fully independent. That being said, I think the individual Irishmen who committed said atrocities got what they deserved. The state does not bear the sword in vain (Rom. 13:4) and I think the Puritans were just in taking out the Irishmen who perpetuated these crimes.
That being said, I hope you don’t take from this discussion that I’m a cheerleader for Cromwell or that I believe that the Puritans were beyond scruity. By no means. They were not perfect and they certainly deserve criticism. Heck, as a Baptist, I have plenty of criticism of their establishmentarian tendencies.
I also think it’s ridiculous to put the Puritans in the same camp as the Jacobins. You’re pushing a false dichotomy by asserting that you’re either a full-blown monarchist or a complete Jacobin, without any middle ground being possible. Cromwell was not an atheist who wanted to comletely revamp the nature of the state, create a new calendar, and wipe out religion. 1649 is not 1789 and England is not France.
As for my moniker, I don’t see any inconsistencies at all. Jackson was a Calvinist and had far more in common with the Puritans than he did with the English monarchy. In point of fact, Puritanism did die out. It was basically dead in New England by the 1700s, which is why Jonathan Edwards was removed from his church. It’s asinine to assume that Puritanism lived on and morphed into Jacobinism or New England liberalism. Dream on.
And no, I’m not this Tom fellow you described. My name is Josh and I’m from Virginia. I have my own blog (http://joshdermer.blogspot.com) and I’ve only been blogging here for less than a year. I hope that my comments haven’t been taken personally or that this exchange will prevent civil discourse in the future. Things can get easily heated and I apologize if anything I’ve said has been taken personally as such.
Stonewall on 07 Feb 2009 at 1:34 am #
Sean:
I was speaking of earthly kings being pagan, not the King of kings. Christ is the only acceptable monarch there is. That you would dare equate civil governments of this world with the Kingdom of God says a lot about you.
Yes, the Kingdom of God is not a democracy. I never claimed otherwise. In fact, I don’t see where democracy ever entered this discussion in the first place.