Tuesday, September 17, 2019

American Political Falsehoods: The Unique Birth of the Constitution

Another common trope of believers in American Supremacism is that the [u]nited States are the only ones in the world to have ever slowly and deliberately decided what form of government they wanted to live under:

John Jay, the First Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, stated September 8, 1777:
"The Americans are the first people whom Heaven has favored with an opportunity of ... choosing the forms of government under which they should live.
All other constitutions have derived their existence from violence or accidental circumstances ...

This shows a lack of historical knowledge.  Russia, long before the new secular saints of the antichurch of America, the Founding Fathers, were born, did exactly what supposedly had never happened before 1787 in world history:  They deliberately set about deciding what form of government they wanted - a constitutional/elected form or a Christian monarchy.  Here is the account from Dr Vladimir Moss:

The boyars nearly produced a Russian Magna Carta, as Sir Geoffrey Hosking explains: “They presented King Sigismund with a set of conditions on which they were prepared to accept his son Wladyslaw as Tsar. The first was that the Orthodox faith should remain inviolate. Then came stipulations on the rights of individual estates, for example, not to be punished or to have property confiscated without trial before a properly constituted court, not to be demoted from a high chin [rank] without clear and demonstrable fault. The document implied a state structure in which supreme authority would be shared with a combined boyar assembly and zemskii sobor (duma boiar i vseia zemli), in agreement with which questions of taxes, salaries of service people and the bestowal of patrimonial and service estates would be decided. Such a document might have laid for the basis for a constitutional Muscovite monarchy in personal union with Poland.”141155

The Patriarch’s authority was enough to scupper the plans of the Poles and the Russian boyars. For when the latter brought the document to the Poles at Smolensk, where a Russian embassy led by Metropolitan Philaret of Rostov had been for some time, then, “on not seeing the signature of the Patriarch on the document, the ambassadors replied to our boyars that the declaration was unlawful. They objected: ‘The Patriarch must not interfere in affairs of the land’. The ambassadors said: ‘From the beginning affairs were conducted as follows in our Russian State: if great affairs of State or of the land are begun, then our majesties summoned a council of patriarchs, metropolitans, archbishops and conferred with them. Without their advice nothing was decreed. And our majesties revere the patriarchs with great honour… And before them were the metropolitans. Now we are without majesties, and the patriarch is our leader (that is – the main person in the absence of the Tsar). It is now unfitting to confer upon such a great matter without the patriarch… It is now impossible for us to act without patriarchal declarations, and only with those of the boyars…’

“The agreement with Sigismund and the transfer of the Muscovite Kingdom into his power did not take place… That is what such a mere ‘detail’ as a signature sometimes means – or rather, in the given case, the absence of a signature!

 . . .

At the beginning of February, 1613, a Zemsky Sobor was assembled in Moscow in order to elect a Tsar for the widowed Russian land. In accordance with pious tradition, it began with a three-day fast and prayer to invoke God’s blessing on the assembly. “At the first conciliar session,” writes Hieromartyr Nicon, Archbishop of Vologda, “it was unanimously decided: ’not to elect anyone of other foreign faiths, but to elect our own native Russian’. They began to elect their own; some pointed to one boyar, others to another… A certain nobleman from Galich presented a written opinion that the closest of all to the previous tsars by blood was Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov: he should be elected Tsar. They remembered that the reposed Patriarch had mentioned this name. An ataman from the Don gave the same opinion. And Mikhail Fyodorovich was proclaimed Tsar. But not all the elected delegates had yet arrived in Moscow, nor any of the most eminent boyars, and the matter was put off for another two weeks. Finally, they all assembled on February 21, on the Sunday of Orthodoxy, and by a common vote confirmed this choice. Then Archbishop Theodoritus of Ryazan, the cellarer Abraham Palitsyn of the Holy Trinity Monastery and the boyar Morozov came out onto the place of the skull and asked the people who were filling Red Square: ‘Who do you want for Tsar?’ And the people unanimously exclaimed: ‘Mikhail Fyodorovich Romanov!’ And the Council appointed Archbishop Theodoritus, Abraham Palitsyn, three archimandrites and several notable boyars to go to the newly elected Tsar to ask him to please come to the capital city of Moscow to his Tsarist throne.”145

--The Rise and Fall of the Russian Autocracy, http://www.orthodoxchristianbooks.com/books/downloads.php?book_id=591, pgs. 70, 73

Does this sound like the work of ‘violence and accident’?  Certainly not.  Furthermore, the guiding ideas behind the Russian decision for monarchy were grounded far more deeply in Christianity than the Enlightenment, counterfeit-Christian rigmarole enshrined in the Philadelphia Constitution:

Since the hereditary principle is commonly considered to be irrational insofar as it supposedly places the government of the State “at the mercy of chance”, it will be worth examining its significance in Russian Orthodox statehood more closely.

Some points need emphasizing. First, the hereditary principle was upheld by a still deeper principle: that the tsar had to be Orthodox. The second False Dmitri and the Polish King Sigismund’s son Vladislav were both rejected by St. Hermogen, Patriarch of Moscow, because they were Catholics.

 . . .

Thirdly, while the Zemsky Sobor of 1613 was, of course, an election, it was by no means a democratic election in the modern sense, but rather a recognition of God’s election of a ruler on the model of the Israelites’ election of Jephtha (Judges 11.11). For, as Fr. Lev Lebedev writes: “Tsars are not elected! And a Council, even a Zemsky Sobor, cannot be the source of his power. The kingdom is a calling of God, the Council can determine who is the lawful Tsar and summon him.”152

Again, as Ivan Solonevich writes, “when, after the Time of Troubles, the question was raised concerning the restoration of the monarchy, there was no hint of an ‘election to the kingdom’. There was a ‘search’ for people who had the greatest hereditary right to the throne. And not an ‘election’ of the more worthy. There were not, and could not be, any ‘merits’ in the young Michael Fyodorovich. But since only the hereditary principle affords the advantage of absolutely indisputability, it was on this that the ‘election’ was based.”153

St. John Maximovich writes: “It was almost impossible to elect some person as tsar for his qualities; everyone evaluated the candidates from his own point of view….

 . . .

“In the acts on the election to the kingdom of Michael Fyodorovich, the idea that he was ascending the throne by virtue of his election by the people was carefully avoided, and it was pointed out that the new Tsar was the elect of God, the direct descendant of the last lawful Sovereign.”154

--Ibid., pgs. 76, 77, 78

And yet the worshippers of America continue to insist on ideas like the following:

James Wilson stated in Pennsylvania's statehouse yard, October 6, 1787, regarding the U.S. Constitution:

"I will confess, indeed, that I am not a blind admirer of this plan of government ...

But when I reflect how widely men differ in their opinions ... I am satisfied that anything nearer to perfection could not have been accomplished.

If there are errors, it should be remembered that ... the concurrence of two-thirds of the Congress may at any time introduce alterations and amendments.

Regarding it, then ... I am bold to assert that it is the best form of government which has ever been offered to the world."

However, what was witnessed in Poland, with disagreements amongst her ‘co-kings’ sapping the vitality of the nation, will one day happen in the Holy American Republic as well, as the inescapable consequences of individualism work themselves out:

The history of the 17th and 18th centuries showed without a doubt which was the superior political principle: Russian Orthodox Autocracy or Polish Elective Monarchy. Thus while Russia went from strength to strength, finally liberating all the Russian lands from the oppressive tyranny of the Poles, Poland grew weaker under its elective monarchy, whose activity was constantly paralyzed by the vetos that every noble in the kingdom had the right to exert. Finally, by the end of the eighteenth century it had ceased to exist as an independent State, being divided up three ways between Prussia, Austria and Russia…

--Moss, pgs 72-3

And at the breakup of the Puritan, Lincolnian American Empire, the whole world will rejoice.


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð, unworthy though we are!

Anathema to the Union!

No comments:

Post a Comment