I’m a historian, but, as we celebrate this season of holiest days, I have to wonder how our immigrant ancestors considered the issue of government and the rights of individuals. How might they balance earthly power? Were all kings chosen by the “most high”? After all, in 1 Samuel 10:1, Samuel says to Saul, the first King of Israel: “You will reign over the Lord’s people and save them from the power of their enemies round about. And this will be a sign to you that the Lord has anointed you ruler over his inheritance.”

Many of us remember the stories of the kings — Saul, David, Solomon, and others — and know that their lives often contained shades of greatness and human frailties. When Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as emperor of the Romans on Christmas Day AD 800, the pope intoned, “To Charles, the most pious Augustus, crowned by God, the great and peace-giving Emperor, life and victory,” thereby creating the Holy Roman Empire that would endure until Napoleon’s reign.

In both chapters of history, one can derive from the words spoken during the anointment that kings and emperors are to serve both the Creator and his creations, mankind. When the crowned leader fails in either or both of those obligations, does man have the right to revolt? Can man actually act in his own governance? The answer to these questions would weigh heavily on the minds of intellectuals and the “common” people, too.

Immigration to the English colonies brought the question of self-governance into clearer focus because the royal authority was distant and often distracted by the raging conflicts in Europe. The English kings prided themselves for their unique position in Europe. As William Shakespeare had King Richard II say, with such resonance:

This royal throne of kings, this scepter’d isle,
This earth of majesty, this seat of Mars,
This other Eden, demi-paradise,
This fortress built by Nature for herself
Against infection and the hand of war,
This happy breed of men, this little world,
This precious stone set in the silver sea,
Which serves it in the office of a wall,
Or as a moat defensive to a house,
Against the envy of less happier lands,
This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England.

England had weathered countless perils since the reign of Athelstan, grandson of Alfred the Great, and no one knowledgeable about the creation of 13 English colonies would have ever envisioned that those same colonies would challenge the authority of the most powerful nation-empire — first with legal petitions and ultimately on the field of battle — and become a separate nation destined to inspire freedom-seeking people across the globe.

But the path to independence and self-government would take decades and its success would be rooted in the debates, discussions, and acts of citizens and leaders throughout those years. The discussions and debates were aided by the lack of a uniform plan for the colonies; each had an individualized governance based on its fundamental purposes, and several had attracted distinctly different immigrants based on faith and ethnicity. Additionally, while England was unique in its constitutional monarchy, the ongoing power struggles between Parliament and King benefited the colonists. From the Magna Carta (1215) to the execution of King Charles I (1649) until the Glorious Revolution (1688-1689), the tenuous control of power often shifted. The English Bill of Rights, signed by William III and Mary II, signaled the shifting of authority to Parliament as it affirmed the basic freedoms of English citizens and disavowed absolutism. The Glorious Revolution might be considered a precedent for the future American Revolution.

John Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, influenced the Glorious Revolution and the writing of the English Bill of Rights. Locke was a deeply religious man who believed that God had created all life and that all humans were therefore God’s subjects and were to live a life according to His laws. Locke believed that God had gifted mankind with intellectual abilities so that they, through reason, could understand His laws and their responsibilities. From that inherent belief, Locke proposed that all people are endowed with natural rights to life, liberty, and property AND that rulers who failed to protect those rights could be removed by the people, by force if necessary.

Revolutionary thought, right? Absolutely!

During the years between the Glorious Revolution and the French and Indian War, the English Parliament failed to institute or enforce broad policies regarding governance, trade, and other basic protocols for the colonies. The colonies, having what was considered an absentee ruler with limited influence through the royal governors, experimented with local control and found that governing at the local level most accurately reflected the will of the people.

A dangerous precedent was developing…