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

the kings were motivated to colonization based on imperalistic tendencies. of course if you are a conspiracy theorist, they really didnt lose control of the american colonies until rothschild gained power (not complete control of england as he had in 1790 yet, but still kind of in there).

good or bad, freemasons are a large body of organized individuals with a encrypted symbology that are organized without centralizing. this is a threat to any monarch, DUH... no wonder they wanted a seperation from gov to spread more effectively and shape a new nation under their own terms. but they still had to organize with the protestants and other colonists. By creating free religion states, they too are freer to act.

(for conspiracy theorists, monarchist breakup is also necessary , since a monarch probably cant be bribed with money as effectively as a parliment/republic etc... not that im saying i would prefer monarchy. Also it is a stagnant power structure that didnt allow for the changes prefered by the roths)

well thats my 2 cents. the DEC of IND reference to "nature's god" seems a pretty obvious reference to me. regardless, seperation of church and state is the best protection for everyone then and now.

Then how do you explain the English Masonic tradition of toasting the Queen and saluting her place as head of state?
In England, most Freemasons are certainly monarchist. In fact, I haven't met one who isn't.
As England was the seat of Freemasonry for the period that we are talking about, doesn't it go against your argument that the nation with the most Masonic influence throughout the world, should be cementing the postion of it's monarch rather than breaking it up as you claim?

I have to disagree with the motivation for colonisation being merely imperialistic. It's obvious that there was some imperialism but this would have come at a much later date, and in the case of the US didn't last long. If imperialism were the motivating factor behind colonisation, the US would never have gained independence. It simply wouldn't have won it's war. The US colonists were fighting an army whose comparitive power has only recently been overtaken in modern times. The British Army of that time defeated the most powerful armies of Europe and conquered almost the whole world, it's highly unlikely that it would have been so ineffective in the WoI if imperialism was the motivating factor for colonisation. One may admire the fighting prowess of the colonists but one should also not lose sight of reality - if Britain were serious about retaining dominance in the US it would have retained it (at least for a longer length of time). As it was, Britain fought a lacklustre war, at times literally handing the colonists victory. It was almost as if Britain didn't care for the fight and was just going through the motions. This is hardly the signature of imperialism.

Originally posted by Leveller
Then how do you explain the English Masonic tradition of toasting the Queen and saluting her place as head of state?
In England, most Freemasons are certainly monarchist. In fact, I haven't met one who isn't.
As England was the seat of Freemasonry for the period that we are talking about, doesn't it go against your argument that the nation with the most Masonic influence throughout the world, should be cementing the postion of it's monarch rather than breaking it up as you claim?

Lets not forget the Monarchs who have been Grand Master of English freemasonry. Kinda hard to be threatened by an organisation that you are at the head of

The British Army didn't "lose" the war of Independenc in a traditonal sense, they won pretty much every battle but they couldn't quell the "insurgency" and as it went on and on they started to employ foreign mercenaries and suchlike which gradually drifted the undecide population towards the rebels.
They couldn't really justify sending an army to brutally put down a British settlement, at the time it seemed insane, nobody back in the UK could comprehend that it was actually happening and most of the population weren't really sure what it was all about anyway.
It's something people today seem to keep overlooking, these people weren't Americans, they were British!
Why should they not be loyal to the crown?

Necros just hit the exchange of power NAIL right on the head.

The Monarchy still maintained covert control, but knew they needed to hand over Overt control, or risk being ousted (first in North America then England). So if we assume they were discussing this (the liberty of man) in Francis Bacon's time (the elite), then we can assume they had already decided to form a stonemason's group that would rise to power when London conveniently needed A LOT of construction done, in a short period of time.

And guess what, it replaced all wood in London with stone, ie. the work of Stone Masons. And they had a Chief Architect, oh don't you know. So the Chief Architect was in charge of making the first lodges, proof that it was the Monarchy. This all happened in 1666, after the planned and executed Great Fire of London.

Freemasons were needed as a political tool, and were created and used at such.

Originally posted by akilles
And guess what, it replaced all wood in London with stone, ie. the work of Stone Masons.

Well.... duh.
The wood had all burnt down because of guess what?...... A fire!!!

Now I don't know about you, but if I had something that got damaged and I had to replace it, the first logical thing to do would be to replace it in a manner which meant that it couldn't be damaged again.
Jeez akilles, stone replaced wood so it's a conspiracy? You're really reaching. And you don't even take into account the fact that the stonemasons of the time had enough work on their plates. They were busy building churches and cathedrals all over Europe and there were hardly enough skilled hands to go around as it was.

Once again, logic goes out of the window in order to save a failed point.

And then to cap it all you claim that Freemasonry was created in 1666 for a political purpose. What happened to the argument yesterday which you were furiously (but as usual uselessly) trying to fight for, regarding their being an offshoot of the Knights Templar?
You can't argue both corners. Either you believe that Freemasonry was created in the 12th Century or you believe that it was created in the 17th. Which is it to be?

One minute you claim one century, the next another. Can't you even remember your own arguments? Why not argue that white is white one day and that black is white the next? It's exactly the same illogical process as you've followed here.

[edit on 15-3-2005 by Leveller]

Right. So the operative Masonry started in 1666.

So the speculative Masonry was descended from the Knights Templar, with some minor superficial changes, so as to leave room for plausible deniability that it is the same beliefs, after centuries.

And because of the large scale construction going on, ALL Masons had to listen to the Great Architect. The perfect time to develop a hierarchy, that would so skillfully blended into the fraternal org so as to go un-noticed.

Its all quite logical, contrary to YOUR attempts to make it seem unlikely.

Originally posted by akilles
Right. So the operative Masonry started in 1666.
Its all quite logical, contrary to YOUR attempts to make it seem unlikely.

Operative Masonry in your context dates to at least three hundred and fifty years before 1666.
The Regius Manuscript itself dates from 1390.

www.angelfire.com...


We can even state that Operative Masonry began when the first two men got together to build a shelter. Any builder can be an operative mason. Speculative Masonry is that which doesn't involve the physical act of building. It was later in creation than it's operative counterpart.

You've got things totally ass backwards. Again.



[edit on 15-3-2005 by Leveller]

I knew you would take it to mean any act of construction.

I am talking about the setting up of the structure of the organization that received the speculative Masonry, so it would be incorrect to say THOSE operative masons.

Really, until this date in 1666, you WERE just a mason, no mention of operative or speculative, that they knew of.

So the organizational structure was set up, with all Masons following the Great Architect's plans, directly or indirectly, ie. orders started coming through 'Grand Masters' so as to distribute the giving of orders. IE. under the premise that it would take too long for everyone to get individual instructions from the Great Architect, you are to listen to the Grand Master.
This was also the beginning of the priests of Masonry, symbolically speaking.

A perfect org to receive Bacon's rituals of the Rose-Croix.

Originally posted by akilles
I knew you would take it to mean any act of construction.

I am talking about the setting up of the structure of the organization that received the speculative Masonry, so it would be incorrect to say THOSE operative masons.

Really, until this date in 1666, you WERE just a mason, no mention of operative or speculative, that they knew of.

*sigh*

Then explain away the Regius manuscript. It contradicts you yet again.
Try actually reading it, instead of babbling away about something you know nothing about and digging yourself a deeper hole.
The Manuscript goes in depth in describing the structure that you so ignorantly claim came about hundreds of years later.

Well,Well, Don't you just love Americans when they get on their high horse and try to relate to one another by arguing over topics they know nothing about, but to add to confusion, they do it through conspiratorial avenues, give me a break!
For a start..Do you people even know how America got it's name?..No!
Do you people know that Freemasonry started over 8000 years ago?..No!
Do you also know that is was Benjamin Franklin who modified ALL of your language to capture America for the British?..No! ( he was a French, triple agent, and attorney, working for the British)
Do you also know that America only came out of bankruptcy in 1999!..No!
So, how does a bankrupt corporation (Ameriaca) annex 50 states?..You can't, so in actual fact, there are no states in America...why?
The answer is so simple you cannot see it, and you never will because the Truth hurts everyone, even Americans.
A/ means no! /MERI/ means mercy! /CA, means sheep.
No Mercy For the Sheep, Kinda says it all huh? AMERICA, what a joke.
I wish you'd all go away like our bad dreams do!
Get a life and get over yourselves because it's a bit late to start thinking about history now, what's done is done!
Oh! Did I also mention that one of your "states" is now a sovereign and sole country with it's own Constitution and a huge Lawsuit against the US for Apartheid and Genocide? Been to the New Hawaii lately?
Do you also know that 270,000 people of Japan are about to launch a massive Lawsuit against the US for Genocide at Hiroshima ans Nagasaki?
At least these countries know the Truth behind what you're ALL screaming about.
I have the absolute pleasure of not living in your country as well as the knowledge of everything about your history and what you've all done about your future.....Nothing!
Axeman and your argumentative pal, I would love to sit you both down in a room and give you both a history lesson about Freemasonry that would make your hair curl, INSTANTLY!

[edit on 15/3/05 by blueymorgan]

Originally posted by blueymorgan
Well,Well, Don't you just love Americans when they get on their high horse and try to relate to one another by arguing over topics they know nothing about, but to add to confusion, they do it through conspiratorial avenues, give me a break!Axeman and your argumentative pal, I would love to sit you both down in a room and give you both a history lesson about Freemasonry that would make your hair curl, INSTANTLY!

For starters, you don't know **** about Freemasonry, so don't let your typing fingers write checks that your limited intellect can't cash.

If you hate our great country so much then shut your hole about it. Jealous much?



[edit on 15-3-2005 by sebatwerk]

Originally posted by blueymorgan
Axeman and your argumentative pal, I would love to sit you both down in a room and give you both a history lesson about Freemasonry that would make your hair curl, INSTANTLY!

Well then by all means, go ahead, you have my full undivided attention...

I would LOVE to hear this! Or perhaps I wouldn't... I can't decide.

I would have to concur with Sebatwerk that you don't know **** about Masonry.

And as far as your comments about America? Yeah... say that crap to an American's face and see how far it gets you. It's easy to sling mud from behind your monitor, where no one can punch you in the mouth.

OK eveyone, let's chill please.

Originally posted by blueymorgan
Well,Well, Don't you just love Americans when they get on their high horse and try to relate to one another by arguing over topics they know nothing about, but to add to confusion, they do it through conspiratorial avenues, give me a break! [much silly nonsense snipped]

Oh goody! I've OH SO been hoping for a new troll....and at last here he/she/it is!!!!

America means "no mercy for the sheep" huh? I'll bet ol' Amerigo Vespucci would be surprised to hear that.

Freemasonry is 8000 + years old, huh? WOW! Hey guys our Craft is MUCH older than we've been thinking it was. . . or than legitimate Masonic research has EVER dreamed.

I wonder if old Necros can find the 32nd Degree Monitor for the 8000 year old version of the Scottish Rite. I mean, there MUST have been a Scottish Rite back then too.

Welcome aboard new troll. We're REALLY looking forward to what you can add to the discussion.

Originally posted by The Axeman
Well then by all means, go ahead, you have my full undivided attention...

Something tells me you won't be hearing back from this guy.

And as far as your comments about America? Yeah... say that crap to an American's face and see how far it gets you. It's easy to sling mud from behind your monitor, where no one can punch you in the mouth.

The internet must be a DREAM for little guys with Napoleon Complexes.

Its true about Ben Franklin though

8000 years is a good amount of time too, for knowledge to survive. It must be from the stars, or something.

Lets not get upset at the Saturnalia'n, ok. He's from A Trial Usa (aUStrAlia). He knows what he's talking about, Americans are getting fleeced

Adam Weishaupt, William Shakespeare, Rene Descartes, George Washington, and Mr. Rosenkreuz. What do ALL these men have in common?
I'll do people a favor, its called an ALIAS. Birth certificates were bought in those days, and these men chose the name history would remember them by, for very specific reasons!

Originally posted by blueymorgan

1) So, how does a bankrupt corporation (Ameriaca) annex 50 states?..You can't, so in actual fact, there are no states in America...why?
The answer is so simple you cannot see it, and you never will because the Truth hurts everyone, even Americans.

2) Oh! Did I also mention that one of your "states" is now a sovereign and sole country with it's own Constitution and a huge Lawsuit against the US for Apartheid and Genocide? Been to the New Hawaii lately?

3) Do you also know that 270,000 people of Japan are about to launch a massive Lawsuit against the US for Genocide at Hiroshima ans Nagasaki?
At least these countries know the Truth behind what you're ALL screaming about.

4) I have the absolute pleasure of not living in your country as well as the knowledge of everything about your history and what you've all done about your future.....Nothing!

[edit on 15/3/05 by blueymorgan]

Point 1:
The United States were not annexed. They applied for enterance into the union through a simple method of plebicite, look it up, a republican form of government, 60,000 population, a recognized territory, and application to congress and then the signature of the president. Doesn't sound like annexation to me. Basic civics in middle school.

Point 2:
The last time we had states seceed from the union it got really ugly and we killed a bunch of our extended family, dads, brothers, cousins and the like. We call this the Civil War, but in reality it was our Second Civil War, the first being with our dotin King George of England. if Hawaii wants to try to seceed let them, So What.

Point 3:
If the Japanese want to open up the genocide can of worms, I'm sure the Koreans, Chinese, Philipino, and the rest of Southeast Asia and the Islands would like to put in their 2 cents too. If similar circumstances were to occur again and we had another Truman in office, the last true real Democrat, we would torch them again. Can You Say, 'BONSAI!!!', I knew you could.
On the winds of the Kamikazi!!

Point 4:
We are eternally grateful that you do not reside in our most favored nation.

I love you kooks and all the conspiracy stuff you guys hock. If the Mason's were running the world, you and I would never know, they would make sure we missed that meeting. LOL



[edit on 16-3-2005 by sharkman]

Originally posted by sharkman
Point 1:
The United States were not annexed. They applied for enterance into the union through a simple method of plebicite, look it up, a republican form of government, 60,000 population, a recognized territory, and application to congress and then the signature of the president. Doesn't sound like annexation to me. Basic civics in middle school.

Don't blame the guy, it's not his fault he doesn't understand what a real democracy is all about. Colonies that descended from England's convicts, and he's trying to rag on the good old USA's heritage.

Point 2:
The last time we had states seceed from the union it got really ugly and we killed a bunch of our extended family, dads, brothers, cousins and the like. We call this the Civil War, but in reality it was our Second Civil War, the first being with our dotin King George of England. if Hawaii wants to try to seceed let them, So What.

Exactly. Wouldn't do them much good. Besides, it would never happen. Who are we kidding. Too many people want to be part of the USA, no state would want to do that. They know they have it too good.

Point 3:
If the Japanese want to open up the genocide can of worms, I'm sure the Koreans, Chinese, Philipino, and the rest of Southeast Asia and the Islands would like to put in their 2 cents too. If similar circumstances were to occur again and we had another Truman in office, the last true real Democrat, we would torch them again. Can You Say, 'BONSAI!!!', I knew you could.
On the winds of the Kamikazi!!

Hah! Like the japanese even have a case! Talk about frivolous lawsuits, let's sue them for the thousands of troops they killed against the geneva conventions, let's talk about the fact that they would not surrender, but rather try to take as many American lives on their way out. Please.

Point 4:
We are eternally grateful that you do not reside in our most favored nation.

Amen.

I love you kooks and all the conspiracy stuff you guys hock. If the Mason's were running the world, you and I would never know, they would make sure we missed that meeting.

If we ruled the world, guys like him would not be walking around. I'd personally see to it.

I'm going to make a half-hearted attempt to bring this thread back on topic. I don't know why though, 'cos if I succeed it'll be just about the only thread that is

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

The real question is... why wouldn't they be? Membership of freemasonry cuts across social, racial and geographical boundaries, and were to be found on both sides of the conflict. Freemasonry falls second, third or fourth down most masons list of priorities, behind God, family, and even country.

Membership of freemasonry doesn't prevent you from

(a) rejecting oppression
(b) following orders, or
(c) fighting for what you believe in

You might just as well inquire why anyone was involved. Or, why do freemasons do anything at all ?