While the abuses of King George made revolution more palatable to the active third of the American population that was committed to independence, in the minds of the intellectuals of the revolution the natural rights of man was incompatible with absolute hereditary rule.
That was the principle that made the revolution great, not opposition to a man, and a king is just a man, but against a principle, against all men who would be kings.
>There was a revolutionary zeal ‘in the air’ in those days, and its manifestations were many and varied, but none so wonderful and productive as the American revolution.
Agreed; the shame of the French evolution was the eradication-of-the-’noble’-caste. {I.E. The “Just because you’re a nobleman or noblewoman you need to die...” sentiment. Contrasted to the American Revolution which was “Because of this abuse, and this abuse, and this abuse... we no longer recognize you as our leader” it shows a world of differing mindsets regarding Justice.}
>While the abuses of King George made revolution more palatable to the active third of the American population that was committed to independence, in the minds of the intellectuals of the revolution the natural rights of man was incompatible with absolute hereditary rule.
Hmmm, I have to disagree [with that thought]. Remember Israel and how they demanded of God a King? He gave them Saul, establishing a ‘hereditary rule.’ However, it was not an ‘absolute-hereditary’ line of rule, because Saul lost it [the kingship] when he overstepped the role of King and tried to assume the role of Priest; regardless, it was CERTAINLY a divinely appointed rule.
To reject, out of hand, ALL hereditary-rule as invalid... one would need to illustrate the invalidity of the rule of the Prince of Peace by virtue of being the Son of God. [Certainly if they claim to be Christian.]
>That was the principle that made the revolution great, not opposition to a man, and a king is just a man, but against a principle, against all men who would be kings.
I don’t think so. I think what made it great was the recognition that man, as Created in God’s Image, holds inherent rights [and responsibilities]... in _either_ the case of leader or follower. {Citizen or Government-official.} A truly [perfect] God-fearing leader {king, president, etc} would NOT illegitimately invalidate ANY of God’s given rights to man. Jesus is a prime example, He did NOT condemn everyone He met as Sinners, though He certainly could have legitimately done so [and He will when Judgment comes], but instead he said over and over “go and sin no more.” {The story of the unforgiving servant is a good illustration of what I’m trying to get at: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt%2018:23-35&version=AMP }