Why Were Freemasons Involved In The American War for Independence and French Revolution

Screw it, I'll do it myself.

This is for the benefit of akilles, who seems to have problems operating the "New Topic" button. He continually hijacks other people's threads with posts that are completely off topic, so I started this one so that his ideas and questions could be discussed without derailing someone else's thread. Here ya go akilles, knock yourself out.

Originally posted by akilles
...Why Were Freemasons Involved In The American War for Independence and French Revolution...?

Is someone going to post that Napoleon was anti-Masonic, and that I'm following his conspiracy theories?

They sure were Uber-Political in those days, but let me guess, no planning was done in Lodges?

Ah, my favourite person.

First off, and Benjamin Frankly can support this, the resistance of the colonies was a result of the idea of borrowed money, resulting in debt and inflation as well as interest payments, not the common 'taxation without representation' which is widely believed. An issue which modern-day people, mostly Americans, are not supposed to consider much less understand.

In an attempt to avoid interest on borrowed money, the new states began printing their own paper money eventually called the 'Continenentals'. The supply of money grew from 12 million, to 425 million by the end of 1779. But, by that year, the one dollar Continental note was worth less than a penny.

Secret Societies, mainly the Free Masons, were drawn to this new turn of events by it's apparent simplicity to draw these problems into open revolution. The Freemasons were drawn to the Sons of Liberty, as well as Samuel Adam's Commitees of Correspondence ... which, if you read your history, boycotted many British goods.

Violent and well known acts, such as the Boston Tea party, were infact instigated by the inner-core members of Freemasonry lodges.

In 1765, wealthy Boston merchants including many Masons formed a group opposed to England's Stamp Act. They were called the Loyal Nine. Research more about this and you'll find that a demonstration that they did actually ended up in a violent ordeal ... this is one thing that Masons 'slipped up' in.

Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is showing that the roots of the Americna Revolution were sparked by people with alterior motives. Unfortunently people at the time didn't know it ... and most now still don't, or will refuse to accept it. There's a lot more about this issue that I could easily write about, but posting really tires me. Research on your own, draw your on conclusions.

Originally posted by Grey
Anyways, what I'm trying to get at is showing that the roots of the Americna Revolution were sparked by people with alterior motives. Unfortunently people at the time didn't know it ... and most now still don't, or will refuse to accept it. There's a lot more about this issue that I could easily write about, but posting really tires me. Research on your own, draw your on conclusions.

But you know perfectly well that alterior motives weren't the ONLY thing that fueled the revolution. I don't need to tell you about the general state of discontent towards England, mixed with colonial patriotism that was a big part of the era... an entire revolution cannot be instigated and fueled only by a few people's motives, the discontent of the greater public is the wood that burns under the fire. Maybe it only took a few people to light the match, but it takes much more than a conspiracy between a few people (who maybe just happen to be masons, as many were at the time) to keep it going, much less to succeed.

Originally posted by Grey
Ah, my favourite person.

Gee, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Especially when I started this thread to try to keep yours on the track you intended. But I guess that's what I get for trying to help.

I am an arrogant bastard, aren't I?

Have one on me.

Excuse me ... if I thought that little comment would offend you in the way it did, I take it back. You actually made me feel bad there.

Though the site did make me laugh.

And sebatwerk, I know, believe me I know. But if the colonists' economy weren't recessing due to inflation and taxation, then they'd be fine under the British Flag.

Yes, it takes a light of the match, a spark, to set it off. But a cannon cannot fire without a spark, and our friends whom history graciously leaves out, are that spark.

Originally posted by Grey
Excuse me ... if I thought that little comment would offend you in the way it did, I take it back. You actually made me feel bad there.

Though the site did make me laugh.

It certainly didn't offend me. I'm a little more thick-skinned than that.

I'm just having a good time.

Ignore this post

[edit on 25-2-2005 by Grey]

It would be hard to deny that the Revolution in the colonies wasn't based upon idealism. It's true that the colonists were heavily taxed, but to be fair, the taxes were going to pay off the war debt that the British incurred while assisting the colonists in their war with the French.

Also, to call poor old bumbling King George a "tyrant" is quite a stretch. In reality, he was rather harmless. If George could qualify as "tyrant", what would the French think about their monarch, who actually was one? This is another example of how our Revolution inspired the French one.

As I stated, Masonic Light, it wasn't just the British taxing the colonists that started it. Inflation and the effort by early colonists to avoid debt by printing their own money attracted orginizations like the Free Masons to cause open revolution, amongst other things. This, coupled with indeed ideology by the masses, sparked the American Revolution. But the people were used, decieved ... I trully believe that even most of the Free Masons that caused a lot of the things during this period and others, really didn't know they were mere puppets dancing on strings.

Originally posted by Grey
As I stated, Masonic Light, it wasn't just the British taxing the colonists that started it. Inflation and the effort by early colonists to avoid debt by printing their own money attracted orginizations like the Free Masons to cause open revolution, amongst other things. This, coupled with indeed ideology by the masses, sparked the American Revolution. But the people were used, decieved ... I trully believe that even most of the Free Masons that caused a lot of the things during this period and others, really didn't know they were mere puppets dancing on strings.

Used for what? Do you deny that, through their efforts and actions, they did not end up better off than they were before? Are you saying that the Revolution was bad?

Originally posted by sebatwerk
Used for what? Do you deny that, through their efforts and actions, they did not end up better off than they were before? Are you saying that the Revolution was bad?

Of course I'm not saying the Revolution was bad ... I'm just saying it wasn't the classic 'fight for Freedom' like many history books would like you to believe. On quite the contrary, America's bid for soveriety and independence just filled a few pockets, delayed a few plans, and accelerated others.

[edit on 28-2-2005 by Grey]

The American war for Independence is really nothing of the sort - who were they seeking independance from...themselves?
After "Independance" America became a set of of semi-independeant states whoes governance drifted from complete anarchy to ridged almost dictatorship like in some provinces thus providing an ample amount of leeway to get away with all sorts of things such as the anexing of Texas from Mexico that wouldn't have been possible with a "proper government."
It pretty much ended with the Civil War and the establishment of a formal government not unlike the one that had been ousted in the "revolution."
The whole democracy and freedom thing wears a bit thin, although I must disagree with saying the King George was harmless, Georgian England was so bad that poor people often arranged "Bread Thefts" so the could be convicted & transported away from the squallor of the East End to the colonies as convicts.

Originally posted by MrNECROS
The American war for Independence is really nothing of the sort - who were they seeking independance from...themselves?
After "Independance" America became a set of of semi-independeant states whoes governance drifted from complete anarchy to ridged almost dictatorship like in some provinces thus providing an ample amount of leeway to get away with all sorts of things such as the anexing of Texas from Mexico that wouldn't have been possible with a "proper government."
It pretty much ended with the Civil War and the establishment of a formal government not unlike the one that had been ousted in the "revolution."

Do you also get your American history from FreemasonryWatch.com? Just kidding. After independece, America became a Federation of States and, not too long thereafter a Republic. What makes you think Texas wouldn't have been annexed under a "formal" gov't? What do you think Manifest Destiny was all about?

They was a Federation of States - but there was no centrally accountable body for foreign representation or law enforcement - hence "The Wild West." Various groups and self proclaimed local governments expanded their claims almost at will, there was a passive invasion and expansion into many regions not previously considered as part of the colony.
By the time of The Civil War the "American Republic" was nearly twice the size it was during the Georgian period.
I have a great interest in American history mostly because of its military significance to modern warfare, it is steeped in war, yet American people seem to know nothing of The French Canadian War, The American Indian War, The Mexican War, The Caribean Anexations, The War of Independance and The Civil War; all of which were interelated and have shaped the country into what is is today.
Take that how you want.
Ever wonder why there is a US base in Cuba?

Originally posted by MrNECROS
Although I must disagree with saying the King George was harmless, Georgian England was so bad that poor people often arranged "Bread Thefts" so the could be convicted & transported away from the squallor of the East End to the colonies as convicts.

Where do you get your facts Necros?
Being transported was nigh on a death sentence. It wasn't a case of get on a plane and spend the night in a hotel at the other end. The survival rates for transportees was horrendous.
I thought you lived in Australia? You should know this fact.

I can definitely see a King creating an artificial famine, and have tales spread of 'bounty' in the colonies, where there was almost TOO MUCH food.

Of course they would leave out the part about the treacherous voyage, but you were atleast GUARANTEED your food on the ship, better than living in poverty, right?

Yes, colonization was not nearly as well-intentioned or as painless as we are supposed to believe it was.

Yes, colonization was not nearly as well-intentioned or as painless as we are supposed to believe it was.

What the hell kind of school did you go to anyway? Did they not teach American history? Or did you opt out of that in favor of Bigotry 101?

The only reason that the US is independent is due to the French monarchy wanting to piss England off. The Irony is that they suffered their own revolution a few years later.

Originally posted by akilles
I can definitely see a King creating an artificial famine, and have tales spread of 'bounty' in the colonies, where there was almost TOO MUCH food.

Of course they would leave out the part about the treacherous voyage, but you were atleast GUARANTEED your food on the ship, better than living in poverty, right?

Yes, colonization was not nearly as well-intentioned or as painless as we are supposed to believe it was.

We're not talking colonization here - we're discussing deportation. The colonists were a special breed who desired to leave GB shores for different reasons - but normally for religious purposes. Deportees had no choice.
Deportees were not guaranteed either food or quality of life aboard ship and conditions were unbelievably harsh. In fact it was quite often the the norm for a vessel to reach it's destination with only half of the passenger list left alive - colonists or deportees. It certainly wasn't the luxury trip that you claim. Nor was it advertised as such, which is why it was the ultimate punishment second only to the death penalty.
Incidentally, there was no famine in England at the time of either the founding of the US or Australia. Maybe you've got your story mixed up with the potato famine in Ireland.