French Revolution – The Pull Of The Land

Venezuela

January 6, 2026January 6, 2026 Richard Barnes

Good friends have asked for my reaction to the recent events of which, unless we have been living under a rock in a desert, we are all aware.

In a post a few weeks back (here) I explained why I leaned against a military intervention.

One can respectfully disagree with actions or policies taken while still honoring those who planned and executed such, which in this case were indeed a wonder to behold!

As you can see in the above link, the situation in Venezuela, for practically the entirety of the 20th Century is not as clear cut as most pundits present it. The ideological convictions of the land of my birth have been steeped in the revolutionary principles of the French Revolution, as has been the case with much of South and Central America (see here and here and here and elsewhere in this blog).

Even today, after the events of three days ago, we have conservatives friends in Venezuela who insist that the expropriations of the iron ore and petroleum industries by the Venezuelan state were fair and agreed-upon by all. That is simply not true. I was in Venezuela when the iron ore and petroleum enterprises were “nationalized”. It was robbery — they in effect paid book value, not market, and this after decades of royalties paid as agreed. But that’s what one would expect with a people imbued with French revolutionary ideology. The negative results of such actions were seen almost immediately.

But President Carter did nothing and, sadly, neither did President Ford before him when it was obvious this was going to happen. I don’t mean they should have invaded! But they could easily have negotiated on behalf of American companies with a stronger hand.

However, wittingly or not, both presidents followed Woodrow Wilson’s footsteps, abandoning United States interests while siding with revolutionaries. William F. Buckley, Sr. testified before Congress in 1919 concerning early 20th Century Mexico’s upheavals, “… the abnormal element of the present series of revolutions is the active participation in them by the American Government.”

Clearly, President Trump’s actions are the opposite of Wilson’s, Carter’s, and Ford’s.

Related to the above, it is very important to remember that Venezuela is not a sovereign country. Over the years, throughout this blog I believe I’ve made that case abundantly clear. One book that explains this very well is La invasión consentida [The Invited Invasion]. Others include, El Delfín de Fidel, El imperio de Fidel, La conspiración de los doce golpes, and more. In addition, this blog has numerous posts that elaborate on this reality.

Ever since Chavez, Venezuela invited Cuba to take over. This is not an exaggeration. For some information see here and here. When I last visited Venezuela in 2005, the Cuban takeover was so obvious it was frightening. As Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado put it: “We have already been invaded.” In addition, major inroads and influences by China, Russia, and Iran are also evident.

As for family and friends who I’ve been able to contact, they are happy but apprehensive. The shouting in Caracas since these events tells us that my family and friends are not alone. Nevertheless, they are greatly concerned with what lies ahead.

I watched the press conference Saturday and wish the president would have explained the Monroe Doctrine better. That has not been taught properly in our schools for generations now. We needed a Reagan explanation but it was greatly lacking, unfortunately.

In summary, that doctrine advised the world that attacks, military or otherwise, against the United States via Central and/or South America would not be tolerated. It was primarily directed against European powers at the time, but ultimately against nations and empires beyond the Americas who would seek to do us harm via our neighbors. In my view, with the Venezuela action, President Trump defended that doctrine, as did President Reagan in the Grenada landing in 1983.

Nevertheless, if you take the time to read the linked posts you will see my concerns about our ability to remove an entrenched Communist political infrastructure in a large country such as Venezuela and to do so quickly. Not impossible, but certainly a highly formidable enterprise.

For example, the acting president, Delcy Rodriguez, although she has emitted conciliatory utterings, is a dyed-in-the-wool radical Communist. She is the daughter of the late Jorge Antonio Rodriguez, a leftist radical who engineered the kidnapping of William Niehous, an American executive in Caracas, in 1976. Mr. Niehous was held for over three years before his rescue.

Delcy Rodriguez’s first executive action since taking the reins has been to unleash the Chavista “colectivos” — motorcycle-riding armed thugs — against public demonstrations celebrating the US action. Of course, Chavez disarmed the Venezuelan people two decades ago. Only the colectivos and the armed forces can carry weapons.

Interim President Rodriguez is no stranger to revolutionary guerrilla warfare and terror. Now, multiply her by the tens of thousands and you have an idea of the difficulties ahead.

Bottom line, as difficult as it may seem, I do hope this is a Grenada situation and not another Iraq! But we also must be sure to not let the Venezuelan people high and dry as we’ve sadly done to others too often during the Cold War. In the case of Grenada — a much, much smaller country to be sure! — our troops landed on October 25, 1983, and our last remaining troops were withdrawn in December, 1984, when elections were held and all Cuban Communists were gone.

By the way, October 25 is a public holiday in Grenada. It is called, Thanksgiving Day.

To be clear, I still wish we had not intervened militarily even though I grant that there are complexities.

One thing we can be united in doing is to pray for the Venezuelan people and to pray for wisdom and grace for President Trump and his administration as he deals with this situation.

Operation Urgent Fury, Grenada, October 25, 1983

US Soldiers Guard Cuban Nationals in Grenada during Operation Urgent Fury, October, 1983

Several of the 1,600 plus medical students kissed the ground upon arrival in the United States after their rescue from Grenada

Over 1,600 American students returned home

We will learn more about the Venezuela operation in the days ahead. We do know that critical military installations were disabled.

Fourth and Fifth of July: Declarations of Independence

July 4, 2025July 4, 2025 Richard Barnes

(First posted on July 4, 2020)

Those who grew up in El Pao will remember celebrating both the Fourth and the Fifth of July, reflecting yet another similarity between the two countries. The American and Venezuelan holidays afforded an opportunity for executives to declare and affirm ongoing genuine friendship and a collaborative spirit between both peoples while we children looked forward to a long “recess” as well as having our fathers home for a more extended time than usual, and also learning a bit more to understand and appreciate our liberties.

I was fortunate to have had a father and mother who, as best they knew how, taught us appreciation and gratitude for America and also for Venezuela.

Venezuela history was a required subject in school. And a most frustrating one it was for me. For the life of me, I could not understand what the early 19th century fighting was about. My teachers seemed to tell stories assuming we students possessed presupposed knowledge as to why the revolutionaries rose against Madrid. But I had no such knowledge. My father had told me about the North American colonies and how they had a history of self-government and liberties and how England had begun taking those liberties away, even to the point of stationing mercenary troops in private homes where they abused and in some cases even defiled the mothers and daughters.

Furthermore, the English parliament had decreed the assignment of Church of England bishops to the colonies: a last straw. I could see why folks would resist and seek to stop that, even if it meant overthrowing the rule of the English king.

Although my mother and father taught me to respect and honor Venezuela, my teachers told no stories about Spain’s abuses against Venezuela. We heard much about abstract concepts of liberty and fraternity and equality. However, all stratospheric disquisitions about intangible concepts did not satisfy me as to why the Criollos rose against Madrid initially, let alone explain the eventual extermination of over one-third of their number. The entire country churned with violence and at the end had been practically depopulated. It was clear to me that the savagery and atrocities occurred not prior to, but during the Revolution. I do remember hearing a teacher quote the words uttered by Simón Bolivar as he approached death in the late 1820’s, “I have plowed in the sea….” And, “…those countries will infallibly fall into chaos and dictatorships….”

But why cast off Spanish rule for intangible concepts only to install tangibly cruel “chaos and dictatorships”?

To read the July 4, 1776 and the July 5, 1811 declarations of independence back to back is an instructive exercise which might help explain why.

The Venezuelan is over 800 words longer and reflects allusions to French revolutionary thinking that is absent from the American. Consistent with the American, it also alludes to the Christian religion which sounds discordant if one has a basic understanding of Rousseau and the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

The Venezuelan opens by alluding to a former declaration (April 19, 1810) which was adopted as a result of Spain’s occupation by France. It goes on to complain about three centuries of suppressed rights and that recent political events in Europe had served to offer an opportunity to restore those rights. They then, following the 1776 Declaration, proceed to justify their actions.

The United States [American] declaration does not complain about 150 years of colonial rule. Rather it expresses concern that, when abuses make it necessary to dissolve long-standing political bands, that such action must be taken carefully and with strong justification. It expresses the need and the willingness to “suffer, while evils are sufferable” before abolishing government and relations to “which they are accustomed.”

I know this is simplistic, and historians will disagree, but to the layman, the 1811 comes across as willful, the 1776, as reluctant.

The longest body in each is the justification. The Venezuelan uses 1,156 words, beginning with another allusion to 300 years of Spanish rule and affirming that a people has a right to govern themselves. Then the author expresses a willingness to overlook those 300 years by “placing a veil” over them (“corriendo un velo sobre los trescientos años“) and proceeds to recent European events which had dissolved the Spanish nation. It goes at length criticizing the Spanish monarchy for its abandonment of her throne in favor of the French and how this state of affairs had left Venezuela without legal recourse (“dejándola sin el amparo y garantía de las leyes“).

It asserts, furthermore, that the vast territories of the Americas with far more population than Spain itself cannot be governed from afar, etc. Here, the author presumes to speak for all the Spanish Americas. The layman is justified in wondering if this misdirection is inserted to remove attention from special pleading in the document that does not wholly stand up.

This section is not easy to follow today without some knowledge of the events current in 1811.

This was not a unanimous declaration; three provinces did not join, presaging the terrible bloodletting which was to follow.

For its justification, the American declaration uses 824 words (332 less than the Venezuelan), to list the abuses and their attempts to humbly address these legally only to have their attempts rebuffed. They make no allusions to 150 years of oppression or of unhappiness with their colonial status. They address only relatively recent abuses, including violence against life and property, mercenaries on their way to fight against them, war waged against them, threats to their religious liberty (the Quebec allusion), and much more. These are listed almost in bullet point format, but without the bullets, and are easy to understand, even 244 years later. It reads as if the document were a declaration of the right to self defense.

This was a unanimous declaration signed by representatives of each of the thirteen colonies.

In their conclusion, the Venezuelans, yet again, allude to centuries of oppression and their natural right to govern themselves. They assert they have a right to establish a government according to the general will (“voluntad general“) of her people.

It is hard to miss the influence of French revolutionary thinking in the Venezuelan document, despite allusions to a Supreme Being (“Ser Supremo”) and to Jesus Christ (“Jesucristo”). Its reference to the “General Will” is Rousseauean and is also found in the atheistic French Declaration of the Rights of Man.

They also state they will defend their religion.

The layman can’t help but be impressed by the schizophrenic nature of this document which contained appeals to atheistic revolutionary thinking then in vogue, while recognizing that the “regular folk” were still very religious and needed to hear allusions to religious fidelity.

The American conclusion appealed to the Supreme Judge of the world and in the name and authority of the people in the colonies they declared independence.

I know that professors delight in pointing out that Thomas Jefferson was the “author” of the American declaration and that he was not a Christian, etc.

However, one does not read the Virginia Fairfax Resolves (1774), or the Virginia Declaration of Rights (May, 1776), both of whose primary author was George Mason, a Christian, nor does one read clergyman, John Wise, who in 1710 wrote, “Every man must be acknowledged equal to every man,” and “The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth…” and “Democracy is Christ’s government in church and state.” Jefferson drew from a rich, deep Christian well. According to President Calvin Coolidge, Jefferson himself “acknowledged that his ‘best ideas of democracy’ had been secured at church meetings.”

The American declaration was followed by seven more years of war whose official end was the Treaty of Paris in 1783 and a constitution, still in effect, whose final ratification was in 1790. The Venezuelan declaration was followed by nineteen years of wars (plural) characterized by unspeakable cruelties and tortures, including a proclamation of “war to the death” by Simón Bolivar. By their end in 1830, one third of Venezuela’s population had perished. These wars were followed by more wars and rebellions which continued to the end of the century. She’s had at least 27 constitutions.

In sum, the American hearkened to her Christian heritage and history; the Venezuelan, to French revolutionary atheism, most starkly demonstrated by yet another revolution, the Russian, in 1917. Both the American and the Venezuelan shed blood. But the latter, like the French, shed it more abundantly.

I love the United States of America and its history. I love her Christian heritage and her pioneers. She is a wonderfully great country with a people who will always pull at my heart. I also love Venezuela and the warmth and genuine friendship of her people. I am grateful the Good Lord has exposed me to both and shown me that, in Christ, our best days are yet ahead.

Declaration of Independence – Text of the Declaration of Independence | Britannica

Text of the July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence

Acta de la Declaración de Independencia de Venezuela – Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

Towards the bottom of article linked above, the reader will find the text of the July 5, 1811 Venezuela Declaration of Independence. It is in Spanish.

Speech on the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence | Teaching American History

Highly recommended to all, not just Americans

Prelude To The Cristiada I

October 22, 2022October 22, 2022 Richard Barnes

“To understand the Mexican situation it must be understood in the beginning that the present is more or less the normal condition of Mexico; the era of peace during the Díaz regime from 1876 to 1910 was an abnormal period in the [post-colonial] history of that country. All revolutions in Mexico work along conventional lines and the present series of revolutions are in no material sense different from those that beset the country from 1810 to 1876; the abnormal element of the present series of revolutions is the active participation in them by the American Government [emphasis mine].” — William F. Buckley, Sr., testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Relations, December 6, 1919 (7 years before the major outbreak of the Cristiada)

Mike Ashe will soon be posting on the unjustly memory-holed Mexican Cristiada or Cristeros War of the early 20th Century.

However, events do not simply “occur” by spontaneous generation or by a sudden explosion of sentiment or rebellion. There are leaders and, more importantly, philosophies that have taken root or to which key elements of society have submitted, which in turn can lead a culture or civilization to heights of achievement or depths of torment and depravity.

To better grasp the immensity and the nature of the calamity which befell Mexico and, by extension, the United States, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it is worthwhile — and necessary — to take a moment to review what went before.

1810 — We begin with a brief allusion to 1810, which is the date usually associated with the initiation of Mexico’s independence from Spain. Invariably, historians generalize with comments such as, “revolt against a large reserve of resentment” or “the pressure cooker finally exploded” and more such terminology. This is found in scholarly as well as popular, Wikipedia type essays.

However, the first thing one must notice about the date, 1810, is that it is barely two decades after the storming of the Bastille and the ensuing French Revolution, which Lenin, a century later, criticized because the Jacobins stopped the terror, something he (Lenin) was determined not to do. And his disciple, Stalin, agreed and fully proved his devotion to Lenin’s counsel. Even after tens of millions of deaths later, large swathes of American colleges and elites indulge their love affair with the French Revolution and its Communist progeny.

Clarence B. Carson wrote, “What particularly intrigued revolutionary socialists, Karl Marx among them, about the French Revolution was the drastic changes it made in the lives and ways of a people. It demonstrated, at least for them, in embryo form, the potentialities for changing man and men in society by revolution…. In sum to … totally reconstruct society.”

With that background, let us briefly consider what happened in 1810 when “Father Hidalgo” allegedly shouted his call for independence from Spain. “During the siege of Guanajuato, his followers captured the city granary in which nearly five hundred Spaniards and criollos [descendants of Spaniards] had taken refuge, many of them women and children. The massacre that followed shocked [all] throughout Mexico….” This event, and others like it, identify the atrocities in Mexico with those in France and with the rest of South America and the Caribbean, as witness Haiti and Venezuela.

In other words, Mexico and Hidalgo were no different than Venezuela and Bolivar and the denouement of each is unsurprisingly similar: massacres, rapes of women, girls, and boys, cold blooded murders of prisoners, invalids, hospital patients, and other defenseless men and women, blighted fields, mines and manufactures burned and buried, homes and offices delivered to pillage, and much more.

In my childhood and youth I invariably heard comments expressing alarm or marvel at the alleged Spanish propensity for cruelty and pillage as seen in the Spanish colonies’ 19th century revolutions. Well, in the first place, a propensity to evil is in all men; however, more importantly, what those comments alluded to were acts that were totally alien to the Spanish colonies. To see such acts in Europe, one would have to visit revolutionary France, not Spain. It is truly a wonder how France and its nefarious, hateful Jacobin ideology gets a free pass.

Just as it can be mystifying to contemplate today’s college professors and their benighted students’ dangerous infatuation with modern Jacobinism, including an overriding hatred of Christianity.

This explains Mr. Buckley’s comments on Mexican revolutions from 1810 to 1876 quoted above.

1876 – 1911 — This was the “Porfiriato” the rule of Porfirio Díaz. As alluded to in Mr. Buckley’s testimony (see quote above), this was a time of post-colonial peace and order not seen before or since.

The Cristero period, which officially began in 1926 under the Plutarco Calles administration, was actually sown in 1911 with the Francisco Madero administration. Madero was opposed to Christianity, or at least any ecclesiastical manifestation of it. He was deposed and allegedly murdered in 1913.

But we must briefly consider how Francisco Madero became president of Mexico.

Madero had launched a revolution from San Antonio, Texas, declaring himself president in November, 1910. Men such as Pancho Villa and Pascual Orozco rallied to him in northern Mexico, creating and fomenting turmoil and mayhem, which eventually culminated in the resignation of Porfirio Díaz in May, 1911, who sincerely wished to avoid further bloodshed.

Francisco Madero was elected president in October, 1911, hailed as the “apostle of democracy”. However, discontent with his administration set in almost immediately and rebel factions erupted throughout Mexico. For example, Zapata rebelled against Madero in November, 1911, barely a month after the elections.

Similar to like men in politics today, Madero was an aristocrat, having been schooled by private tutors in Paris and in the United States. He had little in common with the peon classes that he waxed lyrical about. He had promised everything to everyone and therefore pleased no one.

More worrisome, disorder and lawlessness were such that the Mexican ambassador to the United States resigned in December, 1912, saying, “I lied to the American government for ten months telling them that the Mexican revolution would be over in six weeks…. The truth is that the situation is desperate.”

General Victoriano Huerta was a soldier and natural leader. His drinking was legendary — think Ulysses S. Grant. One example of his fearlessness occurred in Cuernavaca. He was in a hotel when a group passed in the street shouting, “Death to Huerta!” The General “heard the cry, got up, and walked to the door — alone, ‘Here is Huerta,’ he said. ‘Who wants him?'”

General Huerta had been a loyal and dedicated soldier, having fought under three presidents: Porfirio Díaz, Francisco de la Barra (interim president between Díaz and Madero), and Francisco Madero. In over 40 years of service, he had applied for only two leaves.

After putting down multiple rebellions against Madero, General Huerta was once again called upon to defeat yet another insurrection in Mexico City, in February, 1913. It was during this event that he decided to work to depose President Madero. He saw that lawlessness persisted in Mexico and lives and properties of citizens as well as foreigners were continually in danger. The fighting in Mexico City was frightful but is beyond the scope of this post.

Suffice it to say that the government forces were defeated after much property damage and human carnage. Americans as well as diplomats from other nations flocked to the American embassy for shelter. The ambassador demanded that all combatants respect American rights. The patience of the ambassador, Henry Lane Wilson (no relation to Woodrow Wilson, who was to be inaugurated as president in March, 1913) was exhausted and he worked to seek a permanent solution that would protect American and foreign interests and people in Mexico, believing that would also protect the Mexican people.

“This situation is intolerable … I am going to bring order,” declared the ambassador, who then worked with British, Spanish, and German ministers, whose countries had the largest colonies in Mexico City. In addition, twenty-five Mexican senators urged President Madero to resign. Madero rebuffed all approaches.

Concurrently, General Huerta was completing his preparations for a coup which took place February 18, 1913. At 5:10 P. M., the cathedral bells sounded and a large crowd assembled. The people “wildly cheered” Huerta and a general air of celebration prevailed. American newspapers reported that President Taft and his cabinet showed “great relief”.

There were many delicate negotiations between the factions which are beyond the scope of this post. In sum, negotiations were concluded but General Huerta refused to declare himself president. He wished to follow constitutional norms. While Madero was prisoner, he was technically still the president, since he had not resigned.

Huerta, although “in de facto control, cooperated with Congress and the Foreign Minister to secure legal title to the presidency.” He requested Congress to convene and expressed a desire to “place himself in accord with the National Representation” to “find a legal solution” to the crisis.

On February 19 Francisco Madero signed his resignation, which was submitted to the Congress later that morning. The Congress, which had a Maderista majority, accepted the resignation by an overwhelming vote and at 11:15 A. M. the Congress confirmed Huerta as constitutional president by a vote of 126-0.

Thus Huerta assumed the presidency not at the time of the coup, but upon the resignation of Madero and the vote of the Congress, in accordance with Mexico’s constitution at the time.

Turmoil still persisted as several factions refused to recognize Huerta or even the Congress. Added to the tensions were rumors of Madero’s ambitions to foment yet another revolution akin to his actions against Porfirio Díaz in 1910.

On February 22, 1913, after 10 P. M. Francisco Madero and the former vice president, José María Pino Suárez, were shot as they were being transferred from the presidential palace to the penitentiary. There were several “versions” purporting to explain the assassinations, including that relatives of persons killed on orders of Madero’s government attacked the convoy transporting the prisoners. However, there is general agreement that, at the least, President Huerta should have taken more serious precautions to protect Madero. Of course, the most accepted version is that Huerta’s cabinet, including Huerta, ordered the shooting.

Whatever the truth, the fact of repercussions became clear upon the inauguration of President Woodrow Wilson, whose actions led directly to the Cristiada.

(To be continued)

Expected to be released in March, 2023. Pictured: William F. Buckley Sr. (1881-1958)

Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson (1857-1932)

El Bogotazo: Aftermath

May 9, 2022May 9, 2022 Richard Barnes

‘During the bloody civil war of 1948-1953, a group of bandits burned the home of a wealthy Conservative landowner, killed his foreman and two sons, ravished his daughter, and left the owner wandering dazedly before his flaming hacienda. In shocked horror, the man mumbled over and over, “¿Pero porqué?” — “But why, why?”

“And the scornful answer was: “Porque usted es rico y blanco” — “Because you are rich and white”‘

Vernon Lee Fluharty, quoted in Guerrilla Movements in Latin America

Readers of this blog (see, for example, War to the Death) know that violence and savagery in South America was inaugurated, not by Spain, but by men such as Simón Bolivar and his French Revolutionary ideology. Note that the reply quoted above addressed envy and race, “You are rich and white”. It said nothing about El Bogotazo.

“Certain techniques of death and torture became so common and widespread that they were given names, such as ‘picar para tamal‘, which consisted of cutting up the body of the living victim into small pieces, bit by bit. Or ‘bocachiquiar‘, a process which involved making hundreds of small body punctures from which the victim slowly bled to death. … quartering and beheading were … given such names as the ‘corte de mica‘, ‘corte de franela‘, ‘corte de corbata‘, and so on. Crucifixions and hangings were commonplace, political ‘prisoners’ were thrown from airplanes in flight, infants were bayoneted, schoolchildren … were raped en masse, unborn infants were removed by crude Caesarian section and replaced by roosters, ears were cut off, scalps removed….” (ibid).

Readers might think that we are dealing with violence and ferocity unparalleled in modern times. However, if one includes the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution in “Modern Times”, as most historians do, then such savagery as cited above is not unparalleled. A cursory reading of The Black Book of Communism will disabuse anyone of thinking such violence was unique to South America. It is a common thread throughout the history of Jacobinism, whether Robespierreist, Marxist, Maoist, or whatever stripes.

As the avalanche of savage murders and violations crashed down on Colombia, blaming such on El Bogotazo ought to have been seen for what it was: a diversion from its actual antecedents.

But history persists in blaming that event of early April, 1948, for a “decade of mayhem” except that the mayhem began at least two years before. What it lacked was a pretext. El Bogotazo provided that.

The immediate aftermath of El Bogotazo were the deaths of at least 3,000 persons.

By the mid-1950s, that toll had risen to 135,000 direct killings, the vast majority of which were peasants. One thing about Communism: it is historically consistent in mostly killing the people they claim to represent.

Students of this period, known as La Violencia, estimate that the toll was closer to 200,000 when one includes those who died from their wounds. And these figures do not include the tolls of forced displacements and disappearances.

One thing is very clear for anyone willing to put the effort to read beyond Wikipedia, The New York Times, and the like: La Violencia was in no way, shape, or form an “indigenous uprising”, nor was it something in the “genes” of Spanish-American descendants. This was the product of an ideology alien to our upbringing; an ideology which, as Simón Bolívar himself put it, served to destroy centuries of a civilization which was truly a wonder once one steps back and considers (So Close to God).

Fidel Castro returned to Havana having understood the scope of the vast upheavals caused by inflaming envy and unleashing mob passions. He put this understanding to good use throughout his career, including in Venezuela.

Schoolchildren “conscripted” by Communist guerrillas, Colombia, circa 1953

Displacements are a toll that’s difficult to quantify, but we must note its harsh reality.

Manuel Marulanda (seated), known as “Tiro-Fijo”, one of many maniacal murderers unleashed during *La Violencia* (see Playa Hicacos).

November 11: 1918 and 1620 (Written on November 11, 2020)

November 12, 2020November 12, 2020 Richard Barnes

All the best to our veterans and their families today.

As most Americans know, or should know, this day was once known as Armistice Day, commemorating the ceasing of hostilities of World War I (“The Great War”) at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of 1918. It was renamed “Veterans Day” in the USA in 1954.

But that’s not the November 11 I’d like to address in this post.

Earlier today, as I was beginning to put these thoughts on paper, my younger daughters shared a quote by Ronald Reagan: “We are never defeated unless we give up on God.” That further reminded me of today’s topic: The Mayflower Compact, which was signed on November 11, 1620, 400 years ago today.

America’s history, including the constitutions of the 13 colonies, the Declaration of Independence, the United States Constitution, and the constitutions of the states simply cannot be understood if we ignore the covenantal nature of our founding.

Although 20th century historians began to insist that ours was an “Enlightenment” founding, and by that, they meant a secular founding, the truth is otherwise, and is far more interesting and meaningful.

Some date The Enlightenment around the mid-17th century, either with Descartes’ declaration, “I think, therefore, I Am” in 1637, or Newton’s Principia Mathematica in 1687; however, the Enlightenment is mostly identified with the French philosophes and atheists such as Voltaire. Perhaps we should date it according to most French historians, somewhere between 1715 – 1789, meaning the period between the death of Louis XIV until the French Revolution.

Modern historians swoon over this period, assuring us that we inherited religious toleration, separation of church and state, not to mention our very liberties from this Age.

But “by their fruits ye shall know them”.

The fruits of the Enlightenment are most evident in the French Revolution and its progeny, including the blood soaked South American revolutions of the 19th century, the Russian Revolution of the early 20th, and various and sundry others, mostly characterized by bloodshed, tyranny, and chaos.

For more on the French Revolution see July 14 and More on July 14.

The United States owe their liberties and religious toleration and much more, not to the Enlightenment but to the Protestant Reformation. It is not for nothing that the German historian, Leopold von Ranke, wrote, “Calvin was virtually the founder of America.” American historian, George Bancroft, agreed, “He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty.”

To take only one example, the Puritan divine, Richard Baxter, wrote in 1659:

“And where his [the ruler’s] Covenants with his people limit him, he hath no power in the exempt points: e. g. if he be restrained from raising taxes without the people’s consent, if he yet command the payment of such taxes, he doth so not by Authority: for neither God nor man did ever give him Authority thereto.”

These and words such as these were very familiar to the Founders, the preachers, and the people in the American colonies for a century before 1776.

Ambrose Serle, secretary to British General Howe in New York City, wrote to the British Secretary of State in 1776 telling him that the American Revolution was ultimately a religious war. And Serle was no ordinary observer. He knew whereof he spoke. But he was one of many who made this observation. A Hessian soldier fighting for England said, “Call this war, dearest friend, by whatsoever name you may, only call it not an American Revolution, it is nothing more nor less than an Irish-Scotch Presbyterian Rebellion.” A later historian, John C. Miller, who specialized in America’s early history, wrote, “To the end, the Churchmen [Church of England] believed that the Revolution was a Presbyterian-Congregationalist plot.”

There are many such references, including comments from King George himself, who believed that the rebels were Presbyterians.

There is much, much more, but the above is enough to note the importance of the Mayflower Compact.

The Compact was signed by all on the Mayflower and predated the earliest date of the Renaissance by decades, and the more accepted dates, by a century. It was not an Enlightenment document but rather a most covenantal, Christian one.

In brief, the Mayflower was blown 300 miles off course by a storm and, instead of arriving in Virginia, she anchored off the coast of Massachusetts. And that was a major problem because they now were under no one’s immediate jurisdiction. Rebellion and “we’ll-do-as-we-please” began almost immediately to foment within her bowels.

We must remember that of the 102 passengers on the ship, only 41 were true Pilgrims, religious separatists. The others, whom the Pilgrims called “strangers”, were merchants, craftsmen, indentured servants, and orphaned children. This was the primary source of the rapidly rising anarchistic impulses.

The Pilgrims huddled together amongst themselves and drew up an agreement, a sacred “covenant,” making them a “civil body politic” and promising “just and equal laws.” They had already done this as a congregation of like-minded believers; however, they now had 61 persons who did not belong to their group. Hence, their political document which all signed, even the indentured servants.

This document was signed before they left the ship and quieted those “strangers” who were making “discontented and mutinous speeches.” It was designed to stop the impulse of every man or woman to do as he or she pleased, or to succumb to the spirit of every-man-for-himself.

The Pilgrims knew that for their colony to be successful, they needed folks to be law abiding and productive.

And so, on November 11, 1620, 400 years ago today, the Compact was signed.

And, in my opinion, this goes a long way to explaining why Plymouth Colony was long-lasting, remaining faithful to her Compact until 1691 when they became part of Massachusetts Bay Colony. By contrast, the famous Jamestown Colony was characterized by disastrous governments and was even abandoned in 1610, although later settled once more.

Calvin Coolidge said this about the compact, 300 years after its signing:

“The compact which they signed was an event of the greatest importance. It was the foundation of liberty based on law and order, and that tradition has been steadily upheld. They drew up a form of government which has been designated as the first real constitution of modern times. It was democratic, an acknowledgement of liberty under law and order and the giving to each person the right to participate in the government, while they promised to be obedient to the laws.

“But the really wonderful thing was that they had the power and strength of character to abide by it and live by it from that day to this. Some governments are better than others. But any form of government is better than anarchy, and any attempt to tear down government is an attempt to wreck civilization.”

The first words of the Compact are: “In the name of God, Amen.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn said, “To destroy a country, you must first cut off its roots.”

Let us commit to teaching America’s history aright to our children and grandchildren.