I would imagine that this document was influential on Henry David Thoreau, reflected most prominently in Civil Disobedience. Civil Disobedience was in turn influential on Gandhi and Rev. Dr. M.L. King's revolutions.
Personally, I do not agree with the Reverend Mayhew's theology. He makes leaps that I don't see in the text. I find many other biblical justifications for what he claims, just not this passage. The first that comes to mind is "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But render to the Lord what is the Lord's." For me, this is a more clear statement of Mayhew's intent. The Lord has primacy. But He put the ruler in place and so the ruler is owed his due. And the Lord hates injustice. so if you serve the Lord, you will hate injustice as well.
I don't know anything more of Mayhew than your essay, but I wonder if he downplayed Jesus' direct teachings due to his (Mayhew's) theology. I never thought of it this way, but Unitarianism is the first great American heresy., It was such a sharp break from Christian teaching that it is considered a separate religion now.
Great essay. Thanks for getting me thinking about these things.
Thanks for reading, I appreciate your insight on the biblical justifications, it's not my strong point. I do see the logic that Mayhew is applying, but whether that is a strong biblical argument I'm way out of my depth.
Regarding the Unitarian aspect, he was very on the fringe for his time. I was so focused on the influence he had on the Founding Father, I didn't spend a lot of time on his other theological views. Here one the references I had in the article. It does go to show you how radical an idea this was, and it is interesting it took root when so many of the colonists were not aligned with Unitarianism. In some respects Mayhew was very much a rebel as some of the Bostonian clergy claimed he was a heretic. During those times religion still had a primary focus for many, so that charge could be like "cancellation" is today.
Interesting. The idea that the American Revolution preceded the American War. I wonder if that was common knowledge, or that it was just apparent to the people in the thick of it, like Adams?
As it should, it makes me think of today. If there is an American Revolution going on, it is coming from the left. They have their Antifa Brownshirts, but they don't strike me as sufficient to bring on a fullblown American War. And it is fascinating that modern American conservatives are in the Tory role, defending the established order.
Could it reach the point of the US military shelling/bombing its own nation? It seems far-fetched. I can't think of what it would bomb, offhand. And yet; the US military bombing of a US military base is what precipitated the US Civil War of the 1860s. And Ukrainian government bombing of its own provinces led to Russia's Special Military Operation into Ukraine. So it can happen.
I think that as time wore on from Adams, Madison, Jefferson era, it was not discussed as indicated by Adams in his letter. The Founders all urged that in order to under the Constitution, knowledge of the Articles of Confederation was required, so I suspect that they wanted to always refer people to the foundational principles. But I was always taught that the Articles of Confederation sucked and needed to be discarded. I'm starting to read more of the Anti-federalist position.
I mention this because I think things are easily forgotten and taken for granted.
You are right re the Antifa peeps - there is a long standing change in their thought processes that proceeded the Summer of Love we saw. And we are at a disadvantage because we have forgotten the very lesson that that Mayhew instilled. We equate taking the high road with pious behavior. It's not.
I agree regarding military vs military attack in the near future, but I can how a pathway to citizenship could be offered to the illegals if they serve in some capacity. They don't have the cultural moorings and that will be used against US citizens.
I would imagine that this document was influential on Henry David Thoreau, reflected most prominently in Civil Disobedience. Civil Disobedience was in turn influential on Gandhi and Rev. Dr. M.L. King's revolutions.
Personally, I do not agree with the Reverend Mayhew's theology. He makes leaps that I don't see in the text. I find many other biblical justifications for what he claims, just not this passage. The first that comes to mind is "Render to Caesar what is Caesar's. But render to the Lord what is the Lord's." For me, this is a more clear statement of Mayhew's intent. The Lord has primacy. But He put the ruler in place and so the ruler is owed his due. And the Lord hates injustice. so if you serve the Lord, you will hate injustice as well.
I don't know anything more of Mayhew than your essay, but I wonder if he downplayed Jesus' direct teachings due to his (Mayhew's) theology. I never thought of it this way, but Unitarianism is the first great American heresy., It was such a sharp break from Christian teaching that it is considered a separate religion now.
Great essay. Thanks for getting me thinking about these things.
Thanks for reading, I appreciate your insight on the biblical justifications, it's not my strong point. I do see the logic that Mayhew is applying, but whether that is a strong biblical argument I'm way out of my depth.
Regarding the Unitarian aspect, he was very on the fringe for his time. I was so focused on the influence he had on the Founding Father, I didn't spend a lot of time on his other theological views. Here one the references I had in the article. It does go to show you how radical an idea this was, and it is interesting it took root when so many of the colonists were not aligned with Unitarianism. In some respects Mayhew was very much a rebel as some of the Bostonian clergy claimed he was a heretic. During those times religion still had a primary focus for many, so that charge could be like "cancellation" is today.
https://thewestendmuseum.org/history/era/new-fields/jonathan-mayhew/
Interesting. The idea that the American Revolution preceded the American War. I wonder if that was common knowledge, or that it was just apparent to the people in the thick of it, like Adams?
As it should, it makes me think of today. If there is an American Revolution going on, it is coming from the left. They have their Antifa Brownshirts, but they don't strike me as sufficient to bring on a fullblown American War. And it is fascinating that modern American conservatives are in the Tory role, defending the established order.
Could it reach the point of the US military shelling/bombing its own nation? It seems far-fetched. I can't think of what it would bomb, offhand. And yet; the US military bombing of a US military base is what precipitated the US Civil War of the 1860s. And Ukrainian government bombing of its own provinces led to Russia's Special Military Operation into Ukraine. So it can happen.
I think that as time wore on from Adams, Madison, Jefferson era, it was not discussed as indicated by Adams in his letter. The Founders all urged that in order to under the Constitution, knowledge of the Articles of Confederation was required, so I suspect that they wanted to always refer people to the foundational principles. But I was always taught that the Articles of Confederation sucked and needed to be discarded. I'm starting to read more of the Anti-federalist position.
I mention this because I think things are easily forgotten and taken for granted.
You are right re the Antifa peeps - there is a long standing change in their thought processes that proceeded the Summer of Love we saw. And we are at a disadvantage because we have forgotten the very lesson that that Mayhew instilled. We equate taking the high road with pious behavior. It's not.
I agree regarding military vs military attack in the near future, but I can how a pathway to citizenship could be offered to the illegals if they serve in some capacity. They don't have the cultural moorings and that will be used against US citizens.