Crown of America

Origins of the Crown in America

Virginia was one of the first "company towns" in American history. But as a company, Virginia was chronically unprofitable. Finally, after all attempted reforms failed, including the total militarization of resident men, women and children, and after epidemics, an Indian massacre in 1622, and internal disputes, the charter for the Virginia Company was revoked in 1624, and the colony was placed under royal control.

Maryland was a feudal proprietary colony, as was Pennsylvania. Without titles of nobility, the recipients of royal patents made up the greater weight of the early aristocratic leadership of the New World, which also included New York, North and South Carolina, and Georgia. Those colonies that were not governed by a feudal proprietor, equaled or excelled the trend away from democratic thought or practice.

Plymouth Colony (later annexed into Massachusetts Bay Colony) was founded in 1620, by the signing of the Mayflower Compact. Heralded as the harbinger of the Constitution of 1787 by modern people -- and observed annually in solemn Thanksgiving rituals -- the Mayflower Compact was unquestionably NOT a democratic charter of any kind. It was, in fact, a one-sided arrangement in which the settlers promised obedience and the Pilgrim founders promised very little in return. Under the Compact the Plymouth Colony remained in the iron-grasp of a few men for the first 40 years of its existence.

The Massachusetts Bay Colony was founded to reform the Church of England, not to separate from it. It was never intended to be any kind of outpost of toleration, or religious freedom. To the contrary, it was the "Zion in the Wilderness," a model of Anglican purity and orthodoxy, with all backsliders subject to immediate "correction." The original Massachusetts charter gave absolute power over the colony to a small number of company shareholders, constituted as the General Court. Yet the same sense of community that led the residents to be extraordinarily concerned about their neighbor's needs, also led them to report their neighbors for any deviations from the "true" principles of Puritan morality. Many New Englanders utterly refused to live in the Massachusetts "Zion," imposed by a ruling elite, and as a result both Connecticut and Rhode Island were founded. The residents of Maine and New Hampshire were also officially ruled by the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and did not secure formal independence until 1692 (New Hampshire), and 1820 (Maine; i.e., Maine never had existence as an independent royal colony).

"New Netherlands" was founded by the Dutch in 1624, after trading some glass beads with the local Indians for Manhattan Island. New Netherlands was conquered by the English in 1664 -- and but for a brief period when the Dutch re-conquered it, to again lose it to the English -- it was constituted as a feudal domain of the heir to the English throne, the Duke of York, (hence, New York). When the Duke of York later became king, the colony became a royal possession. By subsequent grants, also of a proprietary nature, the Duke of York created the Jerseys, which were later sold to the Quakers; New Jersey became a royal province in 1702.

The Carolinas were also proprietary colonies, granted in 1629. Not colonized until 1663, settlement began under a frame of government drawn up with the help of John Locke, using feudal forms that had become obsolete even in Continental Europe. Because it was so restrictive, Locke's framework was abandoned in 1693; and because the proprietors could not manage the pressing problem of defense, the area was divided into North and South Carolina in 1729. Georgia was another feudal domain owned by a wealthy philanthropic English gentleman, James Oglethorpe. He had the bright idea of importing debtors from debtor's prisons in England, to colonize his land; and those who did (by all means, not all of them from prisons), found a highly restrictive social and economic system. As the protests grew, the crown responded by making Georgia a royal colony in 1753.

The first colonial settlers of the New World brought with them their faith and allegiance to the lawful king, as evidenced by charters granted under the king's seal. But the authority of the king did not recognize the colonies collectively as a corporate body. Instead, the king served as the king of Virginia, the king of Maryland, the king of Pennsylvania, the king of Plymouth Colony, the king of Massachusetts Bay Colony, the king of New York, the king of Rhode Island, the king of Connecticut, the king of New Hampshire, the king of Georgia and the king of North and South Carolina independently. Royal authority, however, is derived of the king in his right as king of Great Britain, which is a singular authority, and the American Crown derives its characteristics from the crown of the Mother Country, pursuant to the ancient Anglo-American constitution that America and Britain hold in common. When the American colonies achieved independence from the Mother Country, a de facto unification took effect, notwithstanding the fact that America was under an Interregnum. This had the effect of causing the American Crown to come into existence, but vacant, due to the rejection by the American people of the British royal family.

In the law there is the principle of the constructive trust. A constructive trust automatically comes into effect when the rights of a lawful successor are deprived by an unlawful act. In the law it is said that the rights of the lawful successor remain in tact despite the usurpation, for that day when the rightful successor may be restored in the possession of his legal entitlement. Additionally, the ancient constitution of America is not contained in any single enactment, therefor, not being enacted, it cannot be repealed. The institutions of the ancient constitution remain the Crown and parliament, regardless of the illegal pretensions of the republic. In the words of the common law, "the king never dies." Therefore the American Crown can never be abolished, but the throne can remain vacant until the American people, acting through a lawfully convened parliament, enact An Act Restoring the American Crown, and Settling the Succession to the Crown.

The Usurpation and the Interregnum

The Declaration of Independence accuses the king of "raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands." What this refers to, primarily, was the Proclamation of 1763, which created a boundary line between the European settlements, and Native Americans, to promote peace with the Natives. This made the colonials indignant, because they felt that they were entitled to take any lands the Native Americans held, for speculative purposes. What is never mentioned is that throughout the American Revolution, both Native Americans and African Americans sided with the British.

The accusation that the king "sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance," also reflected actions that were ordered not by the king, but by the ministers of the Government. Ironically, all the elite of the colonies profited from the civil order that the royal government provided in America, which made their wealth and power possible in the first place. Instead, the United States usurped the king's authority and created a republic, which gave us a bureaucracy so much more burdensome than the British royal government, that today men lament at their great misfortune to be ruled by a dictator and his minions on the Potomac, which they must work to support from January to May of every year.

The king is accused of so many things in the Declaration of Independence, that it is impossible for Americans to believe anything other than that the king was a tyrant. But the truth has always been that King George was no tyrant. The colonial elite held that the king was responsible for "imposing Taxes on us without our Consent..." but the British Government had just gone broke defending American security in the War for the Empire, which ousted the French from Canada, and the Government thought it fair that the colonials pay part of this cost. Under existing law the parliament imposed taxes through the common counsel of the realm. The colonials imagined that their legislatures were the equal of parliament, which defied all constitutional theory of the time. And when Benjamin Franklin went to England to negotiate, he was told that above all, he should never accept any arrangement that would enable Americans to have seats in parliament, which was the representation that they were ostensibly seeking. The fact was, they were not seeking representation, but to overthrow the legal government.

The king is also accused of "depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury," which is not true, as proven by the famous Free Speech case of Peter Zenger in New York. As for "suspending our Legislatures," the truth is that the colonies were in an open state of rebellion, and the legal government was desperately trying to get the situation under control. As for "declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us," the colonials had already engaged in hostilities against his troops, but in the law the king may not wage war upon his own people; the proclamation gave the king's government the legal right to protect itself from lawbreaking outlaws, rebels who intended to usurp control of America for their own benefit. Yet even in this extreme situation, the British royal government observed the law by revoking the Protection of the Crown of those who engaged in acts of war against the constituted and established lawful government.

Then the Declaration makes its most inflammatory accusations, that are also the most easily refuted. The king, it states, "has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation." The colonists were the first to commit crimes, pushing the royal government up against the wall. It was an error of the British parliament to carry out a program of coercion against the American English, and George III played some role in this error, but the violation of laws by the colonials put the officials of the royal government in a position of having to pursue them. It was not the desire of the king to coerce America. American radicals took steps unilaterally that alienated the affection of the king.

The Declaration of Independence of July 4th, 1776, marks the independence of the United States from Great Britain, as a fact. It cannot, however, work to accomplish an illegal purpose, such as the abolition of the Crown. It effectively nullifies the authority of King George III within his former colonies, as is confirmed by the Treaty of Paris, 3 September, 1783, which ended the American Revolution, but it cannot work to the effect as to cause an unconstitutional condition to come into being.

FOR RELATED INFORMATION:

THE CONTINUITY OF THE AMERICAN CROWN

OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF THE AMERICAN MONARCHY

"It may be asserted that the argument offered [in the Declaration of Independence] was not without flaws in history and logic. Substantially abandoning contention on the basis of the rights of Englishmen, the declaration put forth the more fundamental doctrines of natural rights and of government under contract. Claiming that parliament never truly possessed sovereignty over the colonies and that the crown of right exercised it only under contract, it contended that George III, with the support of a 'pretended' legislature, had persistently violated the agreement between himself as governor and the Americans as the governed. A long list of accusations was offered toward proving this contention. The right and duty of revolution were then invoked, the delegates pledging their lives, honour and fortunes to the cause of independence.

"Few will now claim that government arose among men as Locke and Jefferson said it did, and the contract theory has lost vogue among political scientists. It is likewise true from a British viewpoint that parliament and crown could not be separated, and that the history of the colonies after 1607 was not entirely consistent with the assertion that parliament had never as of right possessed sovereignty over them. Furthermore, the specific charges brought against the king were partisan and not uniformly defensible, and the general accusation that he intended to establish an 'absolute Despotism' is hardly warranted. It should be added that several of the heaviest specific complaints condemned actions of the British government taken after the beginning of hostilities."

Encyclopedia Brittanica (1971)