top of page

Chapter H13
One-Man Revolution

How the few convinced the many in the American colonies that England was evil. SOME OF THE TOPICS COVERED: *The Sons of Liberty thugs. *The Boston Tea Party. *The Boston Massacre. *Sam Adams, master propagandist. *Benjamin Franklin. *Thomas Paine's Common Sense. *Patrick Henry. *George Washington. *Thomas Jefferson. *Benedict Arnold. *Ethan Allen. *James Otis & his sister. *The Revolutionary War.  (7 pages)

On your computer or tablet, to rapidly auto-scroll to selected topics in this chapter, click the links in the black navigation box.  (This feature is neither visible nor available on mobile phones.)



Samuel Adams (1722-1803) is famous for being the “Father of the American Revolution” and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He was much more.


Sam Adams graduated from Harvard College and studied law until he got bored with it. He started several business ventures, lost interest, and they failed. He also failed as a tax collector. When the Great Awakening evangelist George Whitfield made a big impression on Adams, he considered becoming a preacher – but lost interest in that as well. It was not until he involved himself with Enlightened politics in order to resist the government that Adams became passionate about something.


He formed a secret political action group to harass the royal government in the early 1750s that would foment a revolution twenty-five years later. He published a radical newspaper, and in his anti-monarchy campaigns he called upon Christians to “dare to read, think, speak, and write. Read the histories of the ancient sages; contemplate the great examples of Greece and Rome.” Adams understood men, what motivates them, and how to manipulate them. Using various tactics he coaxed, cultivated, and recruited men for the cause of Freedom such as Joseph Warren, Dr. Benjamin Church, and his young but ambitious second cousin, John Adams.


Sam Adams was extremely successful at driving a wedge between the colonists and their government. In time the various accusations about taxes and other unimportant issues, together with the Enlightenment doctrines about the rights and authority of the people, succeeded in heating up a degree of colonial suspicion and discontent. But the reality was that most people in the thirteen colonies were loyal to their government, and another large segment of the population didn’t care. That’s why it took the small group of underground rebel activists in Boston twenty-five years to start a revolution.


In order to improve the odds through terrorism, Adams secretly recruited a large group of thugs and called them the “Sons of Liberty.” They were to do his bidding for financial and material reward. Prominent influential colonists and their families who were loyal to the government were labeled “Tories” and systematically terrorized. In the middle of the night they were awakened by the sounds of the Sons of Liberty breaking into and vandalizing their homes – and stealing whatever they wanted. The heads of households were beaten and tarred and feathered while their bound families watched. Actual deaths during the commission of these violent crimes were rare but did happen.


Ebenezer Richardson, a law abiding Tory and family man, was besieged by a group of men and boys of the Sons of Liberty who were throwing rocks through his windows and shouting threats and curses – just like Palestinian men and boys do to Jews in Israel today. When Richardson saw his wife struck by a rock his terror turned to rage. He fired his musket out the window at the mob. An eleven-year-old boy learning vandalism from his father was struck by the musket ball and killed as he stooped to pick up another rock. A delighted Sam Adams, realizing the propaganda potential, organized the largest funeral North America had ever seen.


These kinds of incidents were highly publicized by Adams. He told all the colonies these “brave patriots” were defending themselves against “tyranny.” The other colonies, not knowing they were being fed lies by Adam’s propaganda machine, were shocked at the “outrageous” conduct of government officials and Tories, and began to think the radical revolutionaries in Boston just might be right after all.


Meanwhile, the vandalism and terrorism by the Sons of Liberty got so bad that families who lived in the countryside and were loyal to the government became so afraid for their safety they abandoned their homes and farms and moved to Boston to live as refugees where the government could protect them. They still had to be on the lookout for roving bands of the Sons of Liberty in Boston, but at least the British army offered some protection. (There was no police force; in a Christian society none was thought necessary.)


By the time the revolution started, Sam Adams and his Sons of Liberty had terrorized 100,000 of their fellow Christians (with no regard for Mt 25:40) into fleeing to Canada or Britain where, without their accumulated property in America, and without any real social position, many lived the rest of their lives in poverty.


John Adams said later that at the start of the revolution (after the above 100,000 had been forced to flee) one third of the colonists supported rebellion, one third favored remaining a part of Great Britain, and one third didn’t care and just wanted to mind their own business. It is believed he invented the figures to make the rebellion look more popular, but no other figures exist.


John Hancock graduated from Harvard College and was the biggest crime boss and the second wealthiest man in the thirteen colonies. He was a professional smuggler with a fleet of ships, captains, and crews. (Many of the Sons of Liberty – there were hundreds of them in Massachusetts alone – were his sailors/smugglers.) Hancock was young, unscrupulous, and bored. He was wooed and recruited by Sam Adams, who needed his money. Hancock, flattered by the attention and impressed with the organization and sophistication of Sam Adams’ underground crime syndicate, which included communications links with the other colonies, was delighted to be counted among those in the inner circle. Thinking was not one of Hancock’s strengths; he was pretty dumb. He did not join with Adams for ideological reasons; he didn’t know the first thing about Enlightened political issues and didn’t care to. He was a crook, and that made him anti-government.


Sam Adams organized the Boston Tea Party for three reasons: First and foremost was money. Many colonists bought Hancock’s smuggled tea on the black market because they could get it cheaper than if they bought regular tea and paid the sales tax. But when the government lowered the tax on tea the difference in price was no longer enough to warrant the risk of dealing on the black market. And if Hancock’s income dropped, so did the money available to the rebels. The solution was to make a big show of dumping the British tea and claim the issue wasn’t the amount of the tax, but the fact that the people had no say in the tax. The second reason for the Tea Party was propaganda. It would be presented to the other colonies as a spectacular and inspiring story in order to help get them motivated to join the anti-government fun. Third, Adams was always looking for ways to provoke a reaction from the government so he could publicize it as heavy-handed British brutality.


History records that as the Sons of Liberty poured out of their meeting in the Old South Church to go dump tea into Boston harbor, John Hancock called out to them, “Let every man do what is right in his own eyes!” On an ideological level that quote sums up the purpose of the American Revolution, democracy, the Age of Reason, the British Civil War, the Protestant Reformation, freedom of religion, Greek philosophy, Satan’s rebellion, carnality, and equality. On a practical level, the fact that Hancock’s quote is from a well-known Bible passage (Ju 21:25 among other places) and is quoted almost exactly, can mean only one of two things: First, Hancock was deliberately giving anti-Scriptural advice to men who already didn’t care about the word of God because they were heading out to sin anyway. I consider that to be unlikely. Second, it is probable – based on how we have already seen a popular Enlightened pro-rebellion Protestant preacher take a verse that says you’ll be damned if you rebel and make it say you’ll be damned if you don’t – that Hancock was taught in sermons that the verse means it is good to use Reason by doing what we think is right. In that case, Hancock, his preachers, and their fellow Christians had no interest in the Bible because the negative meaning of the verse is even clear to “the grazing multitude”, and because the Boston Tea Party was unquestionably the sin of clamoring in Ep 4:31.


The Scriptures show how truly evil basing our thoughts and actions on self – carnality – is. When God had Jeremiah prophecy to His people that He was going to punish them with death, destruction, and the Babylonian captivity, He told Jeremiah what to answer when indignant Christians demanded to know what their great sin was (Je 16:10). God said their fathers forsook Him and walked after, served, and worshipped other gods (Je 16:11). And then God said something quite revealing (and shocking to today’s Enlightened Christians): He said Jeremiah’s generation did worse than their fathers by living according to their carnal minds in order to avoid hearkening to the word of God (Je 16:12)! How could God say being carnal is worse than worshipping and serving false gods? Because a person who serves false gods is still a servant; but a person who lives carnally, who lives according to that which is right in his own eyes, has risen up from servitude by ascending to the seat of The Most High by becoming another head like God – which is exactly what Satan did (Is 14:13,14; Ezek 28:2,6,8).


Early one fine Boston evening the Sons of Liberty were out roaming the streets on one of their missions. This time they were supposed to see if they could provoke a fight with some of their fellow countrymen who served in the armed forces. Because they knew the Redcoats were under strict orders not to do anything to further inflame the colonists, these gang members would stick their noses in a soldier’s face or hold his bayonet against the gangster’s own throat, and dare him to do something – all while jeering and cursing him: “Damn your eyes you rascally scoundrel lobster son of a bitch! You dare not fire! Fire and be damned!” They’d walk into the bayonets hoping a prick would draw blood so they could prove “government brutality” to the other colonies.


This night they found a lone, young sentry and began provoking him. Redcoat reinforcements arrived to control the mob. When the Sons of Liberty began throwing rocks, clubbing the soldiers, and knocking some down, they still wouldn’t shoot. At the height of tension and confusion an authoritative voice shouted an order: “Fire!” Five of the attacking rioters were killed. One of them was Crispus Attucks, a runaway half-breed slave and violent felon who worked for Hancock as a sailor/smuggler/wharf rat. He was leading the gang of the Sons of Liberty that night.


It could not be proven that Sam Adams shouted “Fire!” but a man wearing a gentleman’s scarlet cape – for which Adams was famous – was seen running from the scene. Delighted that he had a perfect propaganda opportunity with which to manipulate the Christian masses, Adams himself coined the term “Boston Massacre” and had a fellow conspirator (Paul Revere, who idolized Sam Adams) deceitfully engrave a picture depicting innocent unarmed men and women being coolly mowed down by their own military. Adams had it published in every colony together with a fictitious description of events. Today it is considered the most successful piece of propaganda in American history. The following year on the anniversary of the Boston Massacre, Sam Adams wrote a speech designed to inflame the masses, and he had James Warren recite it in Boston Common while dressed up in a Roman toga to impress the people. This ritual was repeated every year as a propaganda measure. The Christian masses loved it.



Sam Adams was interested in only one thing – a revolution. He did not want fair representation in Parliament and, like Oliver Cromwell and Martin Luther before him, only used the love of money as an issue because it appeals to the masses without the need for intellectual participation. (That’s why politicians always clamor about taxes during election campaigns.) And, since “No pope and no wooden shoes!” had already been used to fight taxes in England, on this side of the Atlantic “No taxation without representation!” was thrown out to the masses as a rallying cry and as a snappy little comeback. The following famous quote, issued under the rubric of “no taxation without representation” is interesting for two reasons: First, it reveals that revolution and democracy are founded on nothing but philosophy and its imaginary Principles and Laws of Nature. Second, it mentions one of the early “proofs” that the Bible contains errors and therefore cannot be the inspired, inerrant word of God: Since taxation by a king without the representation and consent of his subjects is contrary to the “principles of government” in God’s Eternal Natural Laws, 1 Sa 8:10-19 (especially verses 15 and 17) had to be an error because it claims God Himself authorized kings to tax and to take things from their subjects even if their subjects didn’t like it. The famous and popular quote said: “My position is this – I repeat it – I will maintain it to my last hour: taxation and representation are inseparable. This position is founded on the Laws of Nature; it is more, it is itself an Eternal Law of Nature…you will find that taxation and representation were always united; so true are the words of the consummate Reasoner and politician, Mr. Locke. I before alluded to his book – I have again consulted him – and find that he writes…so much in favor of my own sentiments. The words of this great man are well worth your serious attention. His Principles are drawn from the Heart…I know not to what, under Providence, the revolution and all its happy effects are more owing, than to the Principles of government laid down by Mr. Locke.”


The British position against rebellion, although hypocritical because of that Christian nation’s own history of rebellion and adherence to the Laws of Nature, was this time correctly based on authority. When the colonies claimed that their charters made them self-governing, sovereign states, the representative of the king replied, “The King did not grant away his sovereignty over you when he made you a corporation. When His Majesty gave you power to make wholesome laws, and to administer justice by them, he parted not with his right of judging whether justice was administered accordingly or not. When His Majesty gave you authority over such subjects as live within your jurisdiction, he made them not your subjects, nor you their supreme authority. The colonies are part of the British kingdom because two independent authorities cannot exist within the same state. [That’s the reason for Ro 8:7.] There is and can be but one authority, and it must be obeyed. This doctrine is not new, but the denial of it is.”


The f-ing fathers knew they (like Luther at the Diet of Worms) could not possibly win an intellectual argument with Britain. They also knew cerebral debates about the theorized Principles of Natural Law were not going to garner the necessary support among the colonists for a revolution. Because most people’s God is their belly, the f-ing fathers needed to appeal to the gut instincts of the masses with things like taxes, Boston Massacres, Boston Tea Parties, snappy little comebacks, British “brutality”, a “tyrant” of a king, etc. (Stupid and inconsequential things that are still popular with the masses today.) Two of the most influential of the propagandists for the rebels (besides Sam Adams who had no peer) were Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine.


Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) was clever, quick-witted, and intellectually curious. There was, however, no depth to either his thinking or his character. His weight and his age lent him an appearance of dignity he did not possess. His curiosity led him to dabble, with some success, in philosophy and its offspring, science. But his lack of mental depth kept him from having anything to contribute to the debates in the Continental Congress, so he slept and drooled during most of the sessions. His quick wit, his sexual innuendos, his bawdy humor (including his famous masturbation stories), and his humorous Rational irreverence towards the Bible kept those around him doubled up with laughter. His popularity and his newspaper made him a valuable propagandist for the secret and unlawful organization of rebels. Why he joined the rebels is unknown because he was not motivated by principle, did not want a revolution, and – unlike many of his prominent co-conspirators – had no real grudge against the government.


Franklin could not even convince his adult illegitimate son, William Franklin, to rebel against the government. In fact, when William successfully argued from a legal and moral standpoint that the Boston Tea Party was wrong, the mentally out-maneuvered father, filled with impotent frustration, reacted with immature, defensive anger and denounced his bastard son as a Tory “courtier” (a derogatory epithet used by the rebels) and screamed that William saw “everything with government eyes!” – an argument neither penetrating nor convincing. However, when he calmed down, Ben had the good sense to send word to his boss in Boston that the Tea Party was criminal vandalism and a disgrace, and recommended that restitution be made. When the message was read to Sam Adams he looked at the other f-ing fathers and sneered, “Franklin may be a good philosopher, but he is a bungling politician.”


Historians have found Adam’s remark revealing. It is known that throughout the buildup to the revolution the f-ing fathers continually lied, broke the law, had people beaten, encouraged vandalism and theft, ruined the lives of innocent Christians, were in effect crime bosses who allied themselves with and made use of other outlaws, and deceitfully manipulated the viewpoints of naïve, unsuspecting Christian families – all of which have dispelled any illusions among historians that these were men of character and integrity wearing white hats while standing up for truth, justice, and the American way. And, while a few writers have chosen to ignore the fact that evil fruit does not come from good trees, and have chosen to assume the founding fathers were merely reacting to events as they were swept along by them (like Martin Luther), it is well known that these f-ing conspirators actually planned, orchestrated, and executed the events that resulted in war. Ben Franklin’s comments and suggestion about the Tea Party to his bosses in Boston were true, were just, and were the right thing to do (and they show that Franklin was not a member of the inner circle). Sam Adam’s response to Franklin has in its contempt a dark and cynical amorality that is revealing because even unsaved men of only average character, integrity, and compassion do not respond that way about innocent victims. As a group, therefore, the f-ing fathers were men of below average character, integrity, and compassion.


London, in an honest attempt to find a solution agreeable to both sides, invited American representatives to come confer with Parliament, a Parliament that – as we saw from Edmund Burke’s report – was willing to be impartial with the rebels. Franklin was sent to London with strict orders to accept no colonial representation in Parliament under any circumstances. Some members of Parliament, therefore, frustrated with Franklin’s obvious stalling, correctly accused him of not being forthright. Franklin put on an insulted act, indignantly broke off the talks, and returned to the colonies – bringing with him an Enlightened agitator and rabble rouser who is called “The Mouthpiece of Revolution”, Thomas Paine.


Thomas Paine (1737-1809) was an Enlightened Protestant preacher and political philosopher. He was a deep thinker of shallow character, a drunkard, an opportunist, and an infidel who claimed to believe in a “supreme being” only because of the religious climate of his day. He advocated a constitutional republic with a strong central government and a progressive income tax to support socialized welfare. He was hard-line Enlightenment but was too bright and too bold for most people. He had a 20th century mind in an 18th century body. He understood back then – and had the backbone to proclaim – that the secular principles of the Enlightenment – Equality and Liberty – demanded rights for women and an end to slavery. The f-ing fathers couldn’t handle that; it was too much too soon. It is easy for us to see today that Paine was right (based on the values of the Age of Reason), but back then it required not only the acceptance of a principle, but the ability to apply it to other things in order to build an Enlightened society. Thomas Paine had that ability. The fact that the f-ing fathers could not or would not seriously consider Paine’s ideas teaches us something about them: Their rejection of what the Bible says, their rejection of apostasy-revealing Biblical sermons of men like Rev. Jonathan Boucher, and their rejection of the correct (according to the principles of the Age of Reason) counsel of Thomas Paine about slavery and the rights of women, reveal the American f-ing fathers to be true and faithful adherents of neither the principles of the Bible nor the principles of the Enlightenment – their overriding motivation was Self; they merely did what they thought was right and good no matter what the Bible or the Greek philosophers said.


In a way you could call Thomas Paine the father of modern doctrineless Christianity. Augustine opened the door by saying the Greek philosophers uncovered God’s truths by using “Natural Theology” – which is truth derived from self-based contemplative Reason rather than the Bible. Thomas Aquinas then formally incorporated Natural Theology into Christianity, which is why all “theology” courses now utilize Reason to explain the Bible (two things that are mutually exclusive and cause modern Christianity to have so many contradictory doctrines and traditions). When Natural Reason became equal to the Bible, Christianity polarized into two groups: The first utilized both Reason and the Bible – while claiming the Bible to be the “sole authority”, and is represented by the conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists today. The second group almost completely ignored the Bible – even while giving it lip service – and deteriorated into apostates whose Reason said God would be pleased as long as they were “good people.” The liberal churches today represent this second group. Many of the U.S. founding fathers practiced this Natural Theology – although it was often called “deism” back then because they weren’t sure what the true deity’s name might be. After Thomas Paine jump-started the American Revolution with his famous pamphlet, Common Sense, he returned to Europe where his Enlightened political and religious agitating so offended French authorities that he was locked in a French prison and sentenced to death. After the U.S. founding father, James Monroe (whose close friendship with Thomas Jefferson, the 3rd president of the U.S., would help him become the 5th president), used political influence to have him released, Paine wrote (while living in Monroe’s home) his infamous anti-Christianity/pro-modern-deism book, which he appropriately titled, The Age of Reason. His book used examples from Scripture (using Monroe’s Bible) to “prove” how unnatural, untrue, and unreliable the Bible is, and it became – and remains – one of the most popular Bible-bashing books among those who worship deities whose doctrines are based on feelings. Paine wrote: “I sincerely detest it, the Bible – as I detest everything that is cruel…Of all the systems of religion that were ever invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty [because it makes Him appear to be a tyrannical despot], more unedifying to man [too harsh and unloving], more repugnant to Reason [miracles, spirit beings, everlasting torment in hell], and more contradictory in itself [on the one hand it says He is a God of love and mercy, and on the other it says He is vengeful], than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince…it produces only atheists and fanatics…and leads to nothing here or hereafter.” In the early 1800s Paine’s deism morphed into “Transcendental Meditation” among the literary elite, and is why people sat in pretty settings – like Walden Pond – to commune with Nature: it was religiously more informative than studying the Bible! TM and Natural Theology went out of vogue in the mid 1800s when Natural Law was exposed as a pagan myth, but Paine’s love of Reason remains.

Thomas Paine wrote his famous tract, Common Sense, with one objective in mind: to passionately motivate the American colonists to support the idea of war against their king. Today, not swept up in the events of those days, we are able to read it analytically, noting the trite, inflammatory rhetoric, but looking deeper to see if the tract contained any concrete, authoritative, convincing arguments – because the tract was wildly popular and did in fact convince the masses that rebellion was right. However, because Paine’s sole objective was to sway the grazing masses, rather than expecting to find sound and authoritative arguments, we should brace ourselves for still more emotionally-charged sophistry that says nothing because the democratic masses for whom it was written were not capable of discernment. In fact, that’s why the title of Paine’s tract was Common Sense rather than A Biblical Analysis of Rebellion. The sad fact is very few Christians know the Bible, but all people – even the basest and most ignorant – proudly claim to have Common Sense, which happens to be the very thing good Christians should guard against! Let’s look at an excerpt from Paine’s popular and influential pamphlet:


The Cause of America is the Cause of all mankind…the simple voice of Nature and of Reason will say it is right…I draw my idea of the form of government from a Principle in Nature…the king is not to be trusted…there is something exceedingly ridiculous in the composition of monarchy. How came the king by a power which the people fear and are obliged to check? Such a power could not be from God…we have been wise enough to shut and lock a door against absolute monarchy…for the fate of Charles I hath only made kings more subtle – not more just…No truly Natural or religious reason can be assigned to the distinction of men into kings and Subjects…The Almighty hath entered His protest against monarchical government…To the evil of monarchy we have added that of hereditary succession [kings David and Solomon are examples not mentioned by Paine], and this is an insult…One of the strongest Natural proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings is: Nature disapproves of it, otherwise She would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an Ass for a Lion [King George for a king]…The blood of the slain, the weeping Voice of Nature cries ‘Tis time to part…for God’s sake let us come to a final separation…securing Freedom and Property to all men, and above all things the free exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience…But where, say some, is the King of America? I’ll tell you, Friend, He reigns above and doth not make havoc of mankind like the royal Brute of Britain…I rejected the hardened, sullen-tempered Pharaoh of England forever…the wretch, with that pretended title of Father of the People, who can unfeelingly hear of their slaughter [the “Boston Massacre”], and still composedly sleep with their blood upon his soul…let the world know that in America The Law is King…For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe that it is the will of the Almighty that there should be a diversity of religious opinions among us…A situation similar to the present hath not happened since the days of Noah. The birthday of a new world is at hand…men are to receive Freedom.


Common Sense was an instant success. Tens of thousands sold out as soon as they were printed. It was read from pulpits, posted everywhere, reprinted in newspapers, and read at family dinner tables. It is an important historical document because it is the longest and most comprehensive argument for revolution most colonists ever read. The fact that it was a best-seller and a successful argument gives us insight into the caliber of the colonial mind and what appealed to it, as well as showing us how little they consulted the Bible – even when deciding momentous issues such as this.


When the British government found out what was going on behind the scenes it put Sam Adams and John Hancock’s names on a list of criminals who were to be arrested and tried, something that actually increased the motivation and unity of the f-ing fathers. As Franklin said, “We must indeed all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”


Hancock and Adams were now fugitives from the law. Adams organized a warning system and a militia of “Minute Men” to protect him and keep him advised of the whereabouts of the British troops – who were now keeping cadence as they marched through Boston by chanting, “As for their king – John Hancock and Adams; (repeat); if they’re taken their heads for signs; (repeat); shall hang up high on that hill called Beacon; (repeat).” It wasn’t John Philip Sousa quality but it worked.


The two wanted men living on the lam began staying in “safe houses” outside of Boston. One of these houses was up near Concord and Lexington where the rebels were also storing arms and ammunition. The government suddenly and unexpectedly sent troops up to arrest Hancock and Adams and confiscate the weapons. The rebels later learned how the British knew so much about their activities, their safe houses, and the location of their weapons stores: Sam Adams had recruited one person too many: Dr. Benjamin Church was working undercover for the government. That is why, when Britain offered amnesty to the rebels, it excluded the brains behind the rebellion, Sam Adams, and the smuggling crime boss, John Hancock. And that’s why only the two of them were on the run; Britain thought it was a two-man revolution.


Paul Revere and Billy Dawes (a street ruffian and sometime-tanner who joined the rebels merely because he’d gotten into a fight with a British soldier who’d made a snide remark about Billy’s wife) set off on horseback to warn the two most notorious criminals in the colonies the law was coming.


At Lexington the Minute Men, who were local farmers and laborers, nervously assembled. Many of them were related to either their captain, John Parker, or to his wife. Parker was a fifty-five year old farmer with seven children. (The man who had trained the Lexington area men to fight their government was their own Enlightened Protestant pastor, Jonas Clark.) Early the morning of the fight Parker discussed the tactical situation with his men, and they unanimously voted to disband and go home. When Adams found out about it he furiously ordered them to assemble again.


And so the Minute Men and the Redcoats found themselves nervously facing each other…all hoping the other side wouldn’t start anything. Crouched in a thicket watching were Hancock and Adams. When told to fire his pistol into the air by Adams, Hancock reluctantly did so, for both men could see it would probably start a war. That was the mysterious “shot heard ‘round the world”, and the battle and the war were on. (It is theorized that Adams was responsible for that shot because it fits the way he operated. He was there and he certainly had motive, but it cannot be established with certainty.)


Sam Adams believed there are three types of men. First, there are the thinkers, the planners, who manipulate people and events. Second, there are the leaders, who are selected by the thinkers in order to implement the plan. Third, there are the masses who are easily manipulated into having predictable responses – also called “democratic action.” Adams thought the colony of Virginia, because it was neither north nor south and because it linked the two regions, was the key to getting both New England and the South to go along with the revolution. Key Virginians included Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson. All of them were recruited for the cause by Adams.


Patrick Henry was a lawyer who knew nothing about the law. But he was keen enough to figure out “Natural Law” was nothing that needed to be studied because it was merely that which is right in your own eyes with a democratic emphasis. He flunked every part of his law exam except for the major part – the part on Natural Law – so he passed. He came to be called “the Orator of Nature.”


When Henry was young his grandfather and his mother, like many others, got interested in the Enlightened preaching of the Great Awakening, so they left the Church of England (the official church in Virginia) and its old-fashioned, Bible-beating, stiff-necked “be submissive to froward authority or be damned” preaching (1 Pe 2:18), and joined a “New Light” Protestant church. This church participated in an Enlightened practice that was becoming increasingly popular (a practice that is almost universal today): It ignored Ep 4:31 and condoned the sin of clamoring. And it ignored Ro 1:29-31 and approved not only the widespread backbiting whispering among Christians towards authorities, but also condoned the despiteful treatment of authorities with open contempt, implacable disrespect, discontented envy, unrelenting debate, and subversive malignity. Patrick’s parents took him to hear a prominent evangelist, Samuel Davies, preach the word of God. Davies’ sermon said men should never be taxed to support a cause they might abhor. (And during his sermon he kept the congregation as far away from Lk 2:1-5 as he could.) This Enlightened Christianity appealed to Henry’s Common Sense and he became a regular pewster. Patrick Henry was influential in getting other Virginians to embrace rebellion.


Richard Henry Lee, signer of the Declaration of Independence, was a very close confidant of Sam Adams. Lee had a huge and influential family in Virginia, and he served as its link to Adams’ underground headquarters in Boston. At least five Lees served the cause of the rebellion. Adams had Lee, because he was a Virginian, stand up at the Continental Congress and formally propose that they declare independence from Britain.


George Washington was an Enlightened gentleman without the required education. He was very outgoing when among his friends but was unsure of himself and reserved when in a crowd or when among gentlemen because of his lack of education and very bad teeth. His bad habit of using his mouth as a nutcracker eventually broke all his teeth, so he bought uncomfortable dentures. They were made of ivory, cow teeth, and gold, and were held in place by strong metal springs that constantly pushed the uppers and lowers away from each other so they’d stay in place on his gums.


Washington was very ambitious and married for money. He went to church regularly as a gentleman should, but had no interest in doctrine or in the Bible, “being no bigot myself to any mode of worship.” Not surprisingly, therefore, he even occasionally attended Roman Catholic churches. He was careful to never mention Jesus Christ, preferring vague terms such as “the great disposer of human events”, but Washington did not have the passionate dislike for Christianity that Jefferson had. Washington’s written correspondence reveals a deceitful and shallow man with no real convictions or passion about anything – except his hatred for Britain.


Washington’s consuming hatred for his country was the typical reaction of people of low intellect who suffer public humiliation. In Washington’s case the source of his humiliation was his terrible record of military service as a British officer during the French and Indian War. In fact, Major Washington’s ambition started the war: France and England were at peace when Washington, without authorization, ordered a surprise attack on a camp of innocent Frenchmen and Iroquois (this tribe was friendly with both England and France) who were getting dressed and cooking breakfast. The French party was on a peaceful diplomatic mission when Washington attacked them and started the war. The British, who distrusted France and were itching for war anyway, overlooked Washington’s blunder and promoted him to colonel. The Indians realized within a month of fighting with Washington that he was an impulsive, inept fool who was going to get them all killed. Washington was oblivious to how bad he was and immaturely promoted himself as a brave hero: “I heard the bullets whistle, and believe me, there is something charming in the sound.” The disgusted Indians gave a full report about Washington to the British high command, discontinued their alliance with Britain, and variously remained neutral or sided with the French. The British press publicized Washington’s exploits and his name became a byword for military incompetence just as Benedict Arnold’s name was to become a byword for traitor. When Washington was demoted all the way down to captain, he was filled with resentful hatred and resigned from the military. Presto! Up popped Sam Adams, who shared Washington’s hatred and pampered his wounded pride by asking Washington if he would like to be a general and have a chance to get back at his old comrades. So Captain Washington, as suggested by Adams, began wearing his old colonel’s uniform to meetings of the Continental Congress to demonstrate his availability and willingness to fight if independence were declared. Washington had nothing intellectually to contribute to the debates and discussions so he just sat there in his old colonel’s uniform hoping for revenge. When he was chosen by a panel to be the general of the Continental army, the members sat and watched with concealed amusement as Washington stood before them awkwardly reading an acceptance speech he’d asked one of them to write for him.


Thomas Jefferson, with the exception of Thomas Paine, was the best example of an Enlightened Christian gentleman. His heroes were Locke, Newton, and Bacon. Jefferson was not an original thinker but he had an excellent mind, was an avid reader, and possessed the writing ability of Sir William Blackstone, whom he admired. And he was vindictive. He got his start in pagan philosophy when he, together with James Madison and James Monroe, lived in the fashionable boarding school, Classical School for Boys, which was run by the Enlightened and influential preacher and teacher, James Maury. Maury was so impressed with pagan Reason he named his slaves after the ancients. The courses he taught included Greek philosophy, manners, morals, mathematics, Latin, and Greek.


Because Jefferson so fervently believed in Natural Law, he tried to apply it to Christianity and to government. And because Reason rejects things that are not natural, Jefferson logically rejected the deity of Christ, His miracles, the existence of angels and devils, and all supernatural events of the Bible. In fact, he went so far as to edit all of that stuff out of the New Testament, producing what is known as the “Jefferson Bible.” He said he removed those parts in order “to pick out the diamonds from the dunghills.” The “Jefferson Bible” is still sold today. Jefferson also wrote a booklet on the “morals” of Christ. In it President Jefferson used antiquarian Reasoning to uncover the Natural Law “morals” that Christ unconsciously revealed in His speech. Jefferson thought it necessary to use Reason to uncover Christ’s “morality” because when our Lord was crucified He was still so young that His actual words were “defective” because “He hadn’t yet reached His peak development as a thinker” as had Jefferson and the ancient pagan philosophers. Even though he described himself as a deist, his letters to his nephew in 1787 show that Jefferson was really an agnostic. Because he was a Virginian and a good writer he was asked to prepare a declaration of independence. He was neither asked nor expected to write something original, and he didn’t. He merely drew upon the prevailing philosophy of the Age of Reason, borrowing heavily from Locke – a man Jefferson thought had reached his peak development as a thinker.


In addition to the above men, Sam Adams also recruited Benedict Arnold and Ethan Allen.


Benedict Arnold was a low-life outlaw with venereal disease whose primary “occupation” was smuggling. He was once arrested for beating a law-abiding man who’d told the authorities about smuggling activities. Arnold turned out to be an excellent military officer. Like most of the others who joined the rebel cause, he didn’t care if he was ruled by a parliament in London or a congress in Philadelphia. He joined because he was an outlaw; he stood to gain if the rebels won. During the war he decided the British were going to win and accepted their offer of an appointment as a British general. Enlightened democratic principles had nothing to do with his actions. He was not very popular in England, however, because his crude colonial manners were too boorish for refined society.


Ethan Allen was the leader of a “militia”, which was nothing but a large group of thugs (whose “headquarters” was a local tavern) in Vermont who called themselves the “Green Mountain Boys.” Allen was fairly intelligent and studied enough Enlightenment doctrine to brag that he was smart enough to see through Christianity. In fact, he wrote a text called, Reason: The only Oracle of Man. He was a pompous, swaggering bully of low character who was involved in a border dispute with the colony of New York, and told several families to move off their farms because he claimed the land as his – and his Green Mountain Boys backed him up. A sheriff from New York went to speak with Allen about the affair and the talk didn’t go well, so Allen had him brutally beaten. The land dispute ended up in court, with Allen brashly presenting his own case. He lost, and was filled with bitterness. Presto! Up popped John Brown, sent by Sam Adams to recruit this disgruntled young man and his thugs. These “dedicated patriots” (as the American history books call them) “quickly joined to fight for the noble cause of Liberty.”


The fact is most of our f-ing fathers fought against their government not because they were dedicated to democracy or any other ideal, but because they were disgruntled opportunists. Take John Paul Jones for example. American history makes much of his “idealistic fight for democracy” when he was an American naval officer, but tends to ignore the fact that he later went and waged an “idealistic fight for tyranny” as a naval officer in the service of the Russian dictator Catherine the Great. He cared nothing for either monarchy or democracy; he was in it for the fighting and the plundering – hoping to get rich from the spoil.


In addition to Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine, Sam Adams used James Otis and his sister for propaganda purposes. James Otis is revered by historians because he was boldly Enlightened. Otis wondered why people still thought the authority to govern had to come from God and said rule by kings and nobles (2 Ch 30:12; Pv 8:15,16) was “so absurd, and the world has paid so very dearly for embracing it…that mankind seem at this day to be in a great measure cured of their madness in this particular; and the notion is pretty generally exploded, and hissed off the stage.” He authored some popular revolutionary propaganda material and helped Sam Adams distort history for the good of the cause. Today much of the information we have about those times is believed to be some of this propaganda. But because nothing else exists, it is accepted as “history.”


James Otis believed, like most of the intellectuals of his day, that Christianity had no place in government. But he went further and thought that because Reason had exposed enthusiastic Christianity as false – just as it had discredited monarchy – it was time not only to depose monarchs but also to pass a law making it treason for a man to believe in “certain imaginary beings called devils.” Make no mistake about it: Our f-ing fathers did not want a government founded on Christianity, and, as you can see, some of them even wanted it outlawed.


James Otis’ sister, Mercy Otis Warren, was also a prolific reviser of history for the cause. And one area of history that badly needed “sanitizing” was the war effort. For example, since very few people actually supported the revolution, the rebel leaders couldn’t find enough soldiers to raise the banner of Freedom in the face of brutal British tyranny. It was a serious problem. Therefore, when the Continental Congress, in an effort to solve the shortage, imposed enlistment quotas on the thirteen colonies, those colonies, unable to coerce enough men to join The Cause of Freedom, literally emptied their jails and insane asylums in order to supply the men needed by the army. George Washington was extremely disgusted with his troops because they were the lowest of the dregs of society. In fact, the American soldiers only stayed in the army because: 1) They were promised free land. 2) They got more and better food than they could get anywhere else. 3) They got more free alcohol than they could drink. Sam Adams and the Continental Congress realized it was the booze that kept these opportunistic “patriots” in the “fight for Freedom”, and that is why drunkenness and prostitution were always permitted in the army, and why when Washington (who was no slouch at bedding women himself) wrote letters complaining about the situation, he was always ignored. During the war some military campaigns actually had to be postponed because the “soldiers” were too drunk to do anything. Not to worry: The propagandists invented heart-warming stories about family men sacrificing and enduring hardships for The Cause of Liberty. One of the most enduring myths is soldiers clad in rags suffering through a terrible winter at Valley Forge: History not only records it as a mild winter fairly typical of southern Pennsylvannia, but the men were well-clothed, full of booze, and were kept very warm in bed at night, if you know what I mean. Mercy Otis Warren was so used to distorting and exaggerating history she didn’t know when to quit: In 1805 when she published the first history of the American Revolution, it contained so many embarrassingly obvious glorifications and pure inventions that her comrades who were still alive, like John Adams, publicly denounced her. She, in return, thought they were hypocrites because during the war they had applauded her fabrications. There is no honor or loyalty among liars and thieves because their only real motivation is Self.



When Richard Henry Lee proposed that the delegates declare independence it was voted down by some of the wiser heads such as Joseph Galloway and John Jay. The debate over independence is boring and repetitious after tracing its Enlightened principles from the Greek philosophers to Alexander, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Grotius, Locke, Blackstone, etc., but those pagan ideas are exactly what the f-ing fathers debated in Philadelphia. It wasn’t glorious or glamorous; they just sat in a stuffy room with the windows closed in summer so no one outside would hear what went on, and debated how they should act on the philosophy that they’d been taught in school, in church, and in the popular books of the day. In fact, if you were there and knew what you now know you’d be shocked when you saw how these “Christians” ignored the Bible, and you’d be disgusted with their blind reliance on the secular humanism of philosophy for all matters of “faith” and practice.


Two of Sam Adams’ boys from Virginia pressed for independence: Patrick Henry insisted the colonies were “in a state of Nature”, and Richard Henry Lee insisted “Natural Law” gave them the right to rebel. But Joseph Galloway rebutted that he had looked for Laws in nature and had never found any there. Galloway then outlined an impressive plan that would ensure fair representation for every colony by a local “American Grand Council” saying, “we must come to terms with Great Britain.” Richard Henry Lee, unprepared for the generally favorable reaction to the Galloway Plan, tried to stall by saying he’d have to consult Sam Ad- er, his constituents back in Virginia. Patrick Henry idiotically opposed the Galloway Plan on the grounds that Britain “might” try to “bribe” the new American legislature in order to “continue oppressing” the colonies. The delegates voted to consider Galloway’s plan and adjourned. Sam Adams sent some of his Sons of Liberty to pay Galloway and a couple of other delegates a little visit. The next time the Congress convened, nobody – including the suddenly quiet Galloway – even mentioned the Galloway Plan. And one of the propagandist revisers of history later erased from the minutes any mention of the Plan and all of the discussion about it.


The next time the delegates were scheduled to vote on independence they were again so closely divided it could go either way – in spite of Sam Adams’ bully tactics. However, as the delegates prepared to vote an “important” and hasty message from their new “general” in New York, George Washington, “just happened” to arrive at that critical moment. (Adams had Washington write the note earlier so he could use it just as the delegates prepared to vote.) In retrospect, the message really said nothing and was absurd. It said the British troops “seemed prepared” to attack, and the note conveyed a sense of urgency. The British, in fact, had done nothing to even suggest they were going to attack – and they didn’t! They had no authority to attack British subjects, and did not do so until two months after the colonists seceded from the union. But Washington’s “urgent” message had the desired effect in Philadelphia. The delegates assumed any vote was now moot because they thought Washington was probably already defending himself from “British aggression.” The mood was somber, and the vote was a quick and unanimous “what have we got to lose” affair.


General Washington spent the war retreating because his “soldiers” were no match for British Redcoats, and he actually developed into an outstanding defensive tactician. His Christmas battle at Trenton (“Crossing the Delaware”), which was one of his rare offensive moves, was brilliant. When the teen-aged marquis, Lafayette, (who was dazzled by the noble bearing of General Washington) showed up with French troops the odds improved considerably. But it was ultimately finances that ended the war. Britain simply couldn’t afford the expense and the manpower to continue waging a North American campaign, especially with Britain’s relationship with France again deteriorating towards war. (That’s why the French were helping the American rebels – they wanted to hurt Britain any way they could.) British General Cornwallis, out of food and supplies and badly needing reinforcements, retreated to Yorktown to be re-supplied by the British fleet. Alas, the fleet never showed up because it was busily defending itself in a battle with the French fleet, so Cornwallis had no choice but to surrender.


The rebels had won. They were no longer outlaws; they were now f-ing fathers, statesmen, heroes, and Christian role models. And they were about to change the world.


Have ears that hear...

and endure to the end, comrades!

The Sons of Liberty thugs
The Boston Tea Party
The Boston Massacre
Sam Adams: master manipulator
Benjamin Franklin
Thomas Paine's influential "Common Sense"
Patrick Henry
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
Benedict Arnold
Ethan Allen
James Otis & his sister
The Revolutionary War
bottom of page