Betrayal of the knights by the Pope and the king’s they served
[The Knights Templars were disbanded in 1312 after the Pope had accused them of heresy, corruption and abuse of their titles of nobility. Another secret group called Knights Hospitallers received the property held by the Knights Templars.
The claim that Pope Clement V was a puppet of the French king is ludicrous. Were political favors extended back and fourth? Sure, but to suggest more than this flies in the face of historical fact. Once the Templars had out lived their usefulness and their power had grown large enough to threaten the Pope, the Pope decided it was time to destroy them, and see to it their holdings, which were acquired through Papal favor, escheated back to the Pope, or to be held by his trustee the king, and were again granted to the next Papal secret society.
The plot between the Pope and the French king is the most heinous, despicable and evil betrayal of trust in the history of mankind. It was such a vile plot it could only have been born in hell in the mind of Satan carried out by his henchman, the Pope and king of France, later to include the king of England. I'm not a defender of the Templars, nor do I agree with their religion, but what was done to them by the Pope is the ultimate betrayal.
This paper is not an attack on the people, that practice Catholicism. They have as much right as the Baptist to go to hell, as with followers of other "religions". However, I recognize the honor and dedication of the Templars, for their service to the Pope and Catholicism; for which they learned in the most horrible way, was misplaced faith and loyalty. The enormity of the evil plot and betrayal of these honorable men is dwarfed only by the betrayal and murder of Jesus Christ, carried out by the Jews. Through selective history being taught, and this history being hidden, the World has been kept ignorant of the dastardly and evil destruction of the Templars, to obtain their wealth and power. The horrendous and baseless claims created by the Pope, to slander honorable men sworn to give their lives and fortune to this evil and vile man, who claims to be the vicar of Christ, redefines betrayal. The only analogy I can give to compare to what the Pope did would be, a mother murdering her children while they look into her eyes with total faith, trust and love as she murders them. Even though I don't support the religious or political views of the betrayed Templars, to see through history how these honorable men were shamed and murdered by the one person they trusted, who declared to be second only to Jesus Christ, the moral compass of the Church Jesus Christ established, makes me mad as Hell!
When the perpetrators of this evil plot against honorable men, come before Jesus Christ at the Judgement Seat, stand back. Their torture throughout eternity will be second only to Satan himself.
A glimpse of righteous indignation and judgement was carried out by the knights Templars of England, those that survived the Pope's inquisition. Those of you that saw the movie Braveheart will remember the close of the movie, when Robert the Bruce decided to attack the king and his soldiers. The movie stopped at that point, but the battle did not. They fought all day, some accounts say two days. Then at the end of the day appearing at the rear of the Scottish ranks, attacking through the worst possible terrain, the king of England and his knights saw what no doubt filled them with horror, proven by their action. The 500 English Templars entered the battle, these battle hardened swordsmen engaged the English soldiers, who were no match for the Templars. The Templars were the special forces or the Bruce Lees of their day, battle hardened men, expert in the Art of War. The carnage the king of England and his knights saw, caused them to flee the field of battle, the kings soldiers seeing this followed the king, giving the Scots a rout, against 4 to 1 odds, 20,000 English troops against 6,000 poorly armed Scots.
I'm sure the reason the king fled was, because he knew no mercy would be had at the hands of the betrayed Templars, and that he and his knights would have been killed, and there was no one who could stop the Templars attack. I would have given anything to have seen this battle, not for the carnage, but for the justice. All be it not carried out against the main conspirator, the Pope. The victory was no doubt very sweet. Reports say the Templars did not lose a single man on this day of retribution. You see a glimpse of Jesus Word, a 1,000 shall fall by my side, 10,000 by my right hand, also, my enemies shall flee seven ways. History shows the Templars migrated to what is now known as Sweden, and are the bankers and farmers of today, still intrusted with the wealth of the World.
The complicity by the public during the inquisition is proof positive of prior programming of the public, by religion and government, giving the Pope and king a freedom to declare whatever they wanted about the Knights Templars, no matter how absurd, to be believed by the public. The complicity of the public was expected and counted on by the Pope and king, they knew they could act with impunity and with no fear of retaliation by the public. Does the evil perpetrated by the Pope and king, and the complacency of the public remind you of a modern event? Waco! The public having been programmed over the years, then given implanted code words to describe those in the Waco Church, like cult, child molester, extremist in a compound and the possessors of dangerous weapons. Once they were so labeled, the public was totally complacent, even when they saw the Constitution and Bill of Rights being violated by the government, for them that just added more credence to the charges. If the government is using this extreme force, these have to be dangerous people. I have no idea what religion the Davidians practiced, it's irrelevant. Did the women and children deserve to be tortured and burnt alive?
After the women and children were burnt alive by the government, the public was quick to believe the government's spin and propaganda, that the Davidians had to have set the fire. The horror and suffering the women and children went through as their skin and eyes were chemically burnt, as their backs were broken by the chemically induced constriction of their muscles, and if still conscious, they slowly drowned by their blood pooling in their lungs. All this occurred before the fire. Their torture was caused by the huge amounts of tear gas pumped into the church. All this occurred as the public watched on television. Do you understand how you have been manipulated by the government and the Press? Compare the propaganda the public was spoon fed by the government and the press at Waco, with what was done to the Knights Templars in the quotes below. There is no difference, it was much easier today thanks to the modern technology utilized by the government and media.]
“The Temple Church was built by the Knights Templars in the twelfth century. It is the third oldest church in London and in it the Knights Templars were accused of performing some very strange Pagan rites. In the Great Fire of 1666 the Temple Church barely escaped.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, page 88
“At this time the occupant of the Papal throne was Bertrand de Got, formerly Archbishop of Bordeaux and now known as Pope Clement V. He had moved the Papacy to Avigonon, and was a puppet in the hands of the French King, to whose influence he owed his elevation to the Pontificate. Philip IV, surnamed le Bel, now ruled France: a Prince whose handsome exterior veiled a nature essentially false and cruel. With revenues depleted by his Flemish Wars, he turned a greedy eye on the wealth of the Templars. Exactly when and how the plot between Philip and his subservient Pope was first hatched has not been disclosed, but it is certain that while still professing publicly the most friendly feelings towards the Order he was secretly planning their destruction.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 44, 45
“….Upon allegations secretly made, charges were drawn up imputing to the Templars infidelity, idolatry, heresy, and the most detestable vice. Proof presented no difficulties, for France was at this time under the Inquisition, and, heresy being charged, the expert hands of the Inquisitors could be relied on to force by torture confessions sufficient to establish guilt. Moreover, the Chief Inquisitor was Philip’s private Confessor, so that in the seclusion of the royal palace all the plans could be secretly matured for bringing to the State. The events which followed have been truly called “the great crime of the Middle Ages.”
Mysterious rumours were first set in circulation defaming the Order. Some of these reached the ears of the Grand Master, who at an interview with Pope Clement denounced them as false and asked for a public inquiry. No inquiry was granted, but Molay seems to have been satisfied that the rumours found no credence from the Holy Father. Philip treated him with a like duplicity, for it was essential the secret of his plot should be carefully guarded till the time was ripe for action. Three years before, in conferring fresh privileges on the Order, he had proclaimed the esteem in which he held them, eulogizing their works of piety and charity, and their magnificent liberality in all times and places, and his outward demeanour gave no indication of the deadly intentions he harboured towards them. Thus no steps were taken by the unsuspecting victims to meet the impending blow. On October 12th, 1307, the Grand Master was honoured with the place of pall bearer beside the King at the obsequies in Paris of the Comtesse de Valois. The very next day the storm burst. Pursuant to royal orders secretly issued a month before, Molay and all the officers and members of the Order who could be found in France were seized and imprisoned, and all their property taken into the King’s hand. Thus the empty coffers of Philip were at once replenished with the immense treasure stored in the Temple at Paris. On the 14th the arrests were followed by a proclamation which set forth the alleged crimes of the Templars, charging the whole Order with idolatry, denying Christ, and spitting on the Cross at initiation, and habitual immorality of the vilest description; while further instruction in their depravity was imparted to the populace assembled for the purpose in the gardens of the royal palace.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 46, 47
“….Further, ignorant of the Pope’s complicity, King Edward also wrote to Clement on behalf of the accused, expressing his amazement and horror at the terrible nature of the charges inspired, as he suggested, by envious and evil disposed persons who turned the good deeds of the Order to works of perversity, and which he was unable to credit because the Master and Brethren of the Temple, constant in the purity of the Catholic Faith, were greatly esteemed by him and all his kingdom in living as well as morals.
Meanwhile, however, Clement had decided to intervene himself in England, and, on November 22nd, had addressed to Edward from Poitiers, where he appears to have been in conference with the French King, one of those mendacious Bulls with which he now sought to poison the mind of Christendom. In this document (Pro Capcione Templariorum), after reciting the crimes of the Templars, their arrests in Fraance, and the seizure of thei property by Philip, which he alleged had been done for its safe custody and the benefit of the Holy Land, he proceeded to state that the Master of the Order had since publicly and spontaneously confessed that the denial of Christ at the instigation of Satan had been made part of their ceremony of initiation, and that many other Brethren of the Temple in different parts of France had also confessed the wickedness charged against them, doing unfeigned penance therefor. Further, he alleged that he himself had examined a Knight of the Order of high birth and authority, who had spontaneously and fully confessed the crime of denying Jesus Christ on admission, and had been present at a Chapter in the Kingdom of Cyprus when a certain nobleman at his initiation by the Master’s command committed this very wickedness in the presence of two hundred members of the Order, of whom about one hundred were Knights. His Holiness accordingly exhorted King Edward with caution and secrecy in one day to arrest all the Templars in his Kingdom and take their property into safe custody.
Although it is clear there was no belief in the charges at the English Court, on receiving this further communication, Edward yielded. Perhaps in that age even it strong Ruler, if a professed son of the Church, could hardly have done otherwise, for, as has been aptly said, ” When the Vicar of Christ himself entered the witness box scepticism was silenced.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 48, 49
In August, 1808, carne another Papal Bull (Faciens Miscericordiam), repeating much that had been alleged in Clement’s former missive to the King but addressed to Winchelsea, Archbishop of Canterbury, and his suffragans. In this Bull the Pope declared that at the very commencement of his Pontificate reports had confidentially reached him that the Grand Master, Preceptors, and Brethren of the Order of the Temple had lapsed into the unspeakable sin of apostasy, the detestable vice of idolatry, the execrable crime of sodomy, and many heresies that his dearest son in Christ, Philip, the illustrious King of the French, had also heard these things, and that the guilt of the Templars had been proved by many confessions, attestations, and depositions of the said Grand Master and many Preceptors and Brethren of the Order in France. That before three Cardinals deputed by himself to inquire and ascertain the truth, the Grand Master and many Preceptors being sworn had deposed and confessed freely and spontaneously without compulsion or fear that on reception into the Order they had denied Christ, spitting upon the Cross; that some had also admitted that with the same denial and spitting they had received others; that certain Brethren had confessed other things horrible and indecent regarding which shame kept him silent; and that on beaded knees, with clasped hands, humbly and earnestly and with many tears, they had begged for absolution. He accordingly directed the Archbishop and Bishops to institute inquiries in England through the Provincial Councils, and in particular to examine the Templars there upon certain articles of accusation transmitted with the Bull, and named two Inquisitors, Deodatus, Abbot of Lagny, and Sicarde de Vaur, Canon of Narbonne, whom he was sending to conduct the examinations, and whom he required the English Bishops to assist. Clement had no doubt heard of the letters King Edward had dispatched to Portugal, Castile, Sicily, and Aragon, for in this Bull he further alleged that King Philip had not acted against the Templars from avarice, not intending to take any of their property for himself, and having wholly removed his hand from it, but following in the illustrious footsteps of his progenitors, from zeal for the orthodox Faith.”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 51, 52
“The articles of accusation sent by the Pope numbered eighty seven. They dealt (i. a.) with the alleged denial of Christ and spitting on the Cross at initiation; alleged acts of indecency between the Preceptors and novitiates; the wearing of cords or belts consecrated to idolatry; alleged acts of immorality; the worshipping of idols (including cats) in their Chapters; disbelief in the Sacraments of the altar and absolution from sin by the Master and Preceptors, being laymen only….
….No evidence was obtained, however, in proof of the Papal allegations. All the members, Knights, Priests, and Serving Brothers, alike denied the charges and protested their innocence.
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, page 53
“Meanwhile, under the merciless direction of King Philip and his Inquisitors, the tragedy had been pursuing its cruel course in France. There, those Brethren who did not confess were condemned to perpetual imprisonment, while those who admitted the charges and did not afterwards withdraw their admissions were for the most part absolved and set at liberty. Others who, ashamed of their weakness under torture, subsequently retracted their confessions of guilt and claimed to defend the Order, were seized by Philip’s command and burnt as relapsed heretics. Fifty four so suffered at Paris in one day. Their firmness in adhering to their retractations notwithstanding the terrible consequences and the intrepidity with which they endured a cruel death, astonished all beholders, and point with overwhelming force to the falsity of the charges laid against them.”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 63, 64
“….The fate of James de Molay, the Grand Master of the Temple and some of his superior officers still remained undecided….With Molay, Geoffrey de Charnis, Preceptor of Normandy, and two other Knights of high position, Hugh de Peraud, Visitor of France, and Godfrey de Gonnville, Preceptor of Aquitaine, were arraigned before this tribunal. The two latter abode by their former confessions, and were sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. But the Grand Master and Geoffrey de Charnis, to the astonishment of their Judges, seized the opportunity to publicly declare that they were innocent of the charges laid against them, that the confessions they had made to save their own lives were false and that the Order was pure and holy. Unprepared for such an emergency and at a loss what course to pursue, the Commissioners adjourned without pronouncing any judgement. Subject only to ecclesiastical law the Knights were not amenable to any lay jurisdiction till sentenced by a spiritual Court, but, contemptuously indifferent to Papal sanction, King Philip did not wait. Calling his Counsellors together he forthwith passed sentence of death, and at dusk of the same day, March 18th, 1313, the Grand Master and his undaunted companion were taken by royal officers to an island in the Seine and, protesting their innocence to the last, slowly burnt to death.
It is said that in his final agony Molay summoned Pope and King to meet him within a year before that tribunal where judgment does not err. The story may be an ex post facto invention to be explained rather by a popular belief in the innocence of the victims than by any circumstance which actually occurred. But, be that as it may, in the events which followed many believed they beheld the retribution of divine wrath. In little more than a month the venal Pontiff, glutted with ill gotten gain wealth, was smitten by a foul disease and passed to his account; while on the 29th of the following November King Philip, still in middle life, was called from the enjoyment of his plunder to answer for the wrongs he had committed. He expired at Fontainbleau, the victim of a mysterious malady which baffled all medical skill.”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 65, 66
“The severance from Rome and the confiscation of the Monastic estates in England which were carried out by Henry VIII, were accompanied by one change which intimately concerned the two legal Societies of the Temple. The heavy hand of that masterful monarch fell with crushing force upon the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. During two hundred years in the Island of Rhodes, the Knights, against the Moslem Power, had valiantly upheld the cause of the Cross, but at last, in 1525, they were forced to capitulate to the conquering Turk. In their extremity their great services to Christendom were forgotten. Henry coveted their possessions, and in 1540 his subservient Parliament passed an Act confiscating the property of the Order in England. To give some colour of justification to the robbery this statute recited that the Knights of the Hospital of St. John had unnaturally, and contrary to the duty of their allegiances, sustained and maintained the usurped power and authority of the Bishop of Rome, the common enemy to the King and his realm; and that the Island of Rhodes, being lost, it was better that possessions of the Order should be employed and spent within the realm for the defence and surety thereof than used by such unnatural subjects who daily did privily and craftily attempt to subvert good and godly policy. Accordingly, it proceeded to make the wearing by the members of the Order upon their bodies of any sign, mark, or token, heretofore used or accustomed for the knowledge of the said religion, an offence against the Statute of Praomunire (16 R. II, c. 5); vested all the property of the Order real and personal in England and Ireland in the King and his successors, to use and employ at his own free will and pleasure under survey of the Court of Augmentations, and pronounced void and of none effect all privileges of sanctuary hitherto belonging to, used, or claimed in the mansion houses and other places commonly called St. John’s hold. Pensions were provided under the Act for various officers of the Order, “being the King’s true and faithfull subjects,….”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 143, 144
“The turning of the tide for Robert the Bruce, Scotland and the Knights Templar was the famous Battle of Bannockburn which took place on June 24, 1324…. On June 24 of 1324, Robert the Bruce of Scotland with approximately 6,000 Scots miraculously defeated 20,000 English soldiers. Exactly what took place has never really been recorded. It is believed by some that Bruce did it with the help of a special force of Knights Templar. After all, June 24 was also a special day to the Knights Templar; it was St. John’s Day….after a day of combat which had left both English and Scottish armies exhausted… Panic swept the English ranks. King Edward, together with 500 of his knights, abruptly fled the field. Demoralized, the English foot-soldiers promptly followed suit, and the withdrawal deteriorated quickly into a full-scale rout, the entire English army abandoning their supplies, their baggage, their money, their gold and silver plate, their arms, armour and equipment.”
“…the great King Robert the Bruce supported by the Knights Templar led by Sir William Sinclair with an army of only 9,000, defeated 38,000 Englishmen, the Scots facing heavy cavalry, archers and wave upon wave of staunch and brave Englishmen.
On that day, it was the crushing charge of the Knights Templar across rocky and almost impassable ground that turned the tide of victory. That far off day, almost seven hundred years ago, they won for Scotland her independence….Sir Robert Keith commanded the light cavalry whilst the Knights Templar were led by Sir William Sinclair.”
Connection of our flag to the Pope, and the secret societies
[The below quotes are self explanatory, I've already dealt with the military nature of our flag in "The United States Is Still A British Colony". I wouldd just point out, Britain use their uniforms as representations of their flag, we retained the British colors in our flag, the colors of Britain and the Pope.]
“The first Templar to be initiated in the United States was William Davis who was given thhe degrees of Excellent, Supe Excellent, Royal Arch, and Knight Templar by the St. Andrew’s Royal Arch Lodge on August 28th, 1769. Davis owned an apothecary business in Boston, but is perhaps most noted for his efforts at the Battle of Bunker Hill. Here it was Davis who suggested the “Barrel Defense” in which Barrels full of earth and stone were rolled down on the attacking units.
Of course other Revolutionary War notables would be invested with the honor of being Knights Templar, among them Paul Revere who was initiated on December 11th, 1769. Latterly, on May 14th 1770, Joseph Warren another Revolutionary War hero would add his name to the roster of early American Templars.”
“All Knights Templar are members of the world’s oldest fraternal organization known as “The Ancient Free And Accepted Masons” or more commonly known as “Masons”. However, not all Masons are Templars. Templary is but a part of the Masonic structure known as the “York Rite Of FreeMasonry”.”
“….that of the Templars was purely military form the beginning, and on this point it can claim priority, despite the contrary assertions of the Hospitallers. The Templars followed a different monastic rule and wore a different habit — the white habit of the Cistercians, whose rule they followed, with a red cross, while the Hospitallers had the black mantle with a white cross. In war the knightly brothers wore above their armour a red surcoat with the white cross. Mutually emulous from the outset, they soon became rivals, and this rivalry had much to do with the rapid decline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In other respects the two orders held the same rank in Church and State, both being recognized as regular orders and endowed by the papacy with most extensive privileges, absolute independence of all spiritual and temporal authority save that of Rome, exemptions from tithes, with the right to have their own chapels, clergy and cemeteries….The name knights then prevailed over that of hospitallers. This character was accentuated by the fusion of the Hospitallers with the remaining Knights Templars subsequent to the suppression of the latter (1312). This fusion at the same time increased the wealth of the order, to which the pope assigned the property of the Templars in every country except Aragon and Portugal.” Catholic Encyclopedia
“All of the flags used in the colonies were military flags: “The flags used by the Colonies, before the Revolution, were chiefly those of the mother country, and though there were many other designs, they were nearly always combined with some feature of the British colors.” Fallows P. 3.
“The flag mentioned by Admiral Preble that was unfurled by General Washington at his camp at Cambridge is called the Grand Union Flag. It was the first federal flag to contain the thirteen stripes.
What is this Grand Union Flag? How is it composed? In the canton are the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, taken, with their blue field, straight from the “meteor flag” of old England. But the greater part of this new flag is contained in the thirteen alternate stripes of red and white, symbolic of the thirteen leagued Colonies that stretch from New Hampshire to Georgia.” Abbott P. 10.
“The Grand Union flag was nothing more than an adaptation of the British red ensign, also known as the meteor flag. The only difference being that instead of being entirely red, it contained thirteen, horizontal red and white stripes, like the modern day American ensign.
The statement is made that it was designed by a committee appointed by Congress for that purpose; but the committee referred to was appointed to confer with General Washington and others for the purpose of devising means for organizing and maintaining an army, and neither does their official report nor correspondence show that they even considered the question of a flag. It was not long after their return to Philadelphia when, on January 1, 1776, there was hoisted over General Washington’s headquarters on Prospect Hill, at Somerville, near Cambridge, a flag having thirteen horizontal red and white stripes, and in the canton was the Union Jack, complying with the act of 1707, requiring that it be on all flags, banners, standards, and ensigns, whether used on land or at sea. It was merely the British marine flag of that day, with the solid red field divided by white ribbons so as to make thirteen red and white stripes, representing the thirteen revolting Colonies.
At that time the idea of independence was not generally seriously considered, so that the Union Jack in this flag showed the allegiance of the Colonies to their mother country. The flag itself was immediately appropriated by the Navy, for our continental fleet under Admiral Hopkins carried it as a national ensign early in February, if not in January, 1776; and although our Army used it over fortifications and barracks, they did not carry it in battle. With the growth of the idea of independence the colonists apparently conceived a dislike for the Union Jack in the flag, for after 1776 I have found no definite instance of its use by our Revolutionary patriots.” Thurston P. 8.
“Prior to the Declaration of Independence the different colonies retained the standards of the mother country, the ancient national flag of England, a white banner with the red cross of St. George, or the union flag of King James, a combination of the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, designated as the King s colors.” California Constitution P. 5.
“On January 2, 1776, at Cambridge, in the presence of the military, with the assistance of his officers, and with appropriate ceremonies – in which the Franklin Committee were participants – General Washington, with his own hands, hoisted the newly accepted and newly made banner upon a towering and specially raised pine tree liberty pole; thus unfurling to the breeze and displaying to his army, the citizens of the vicinity, and the British forces in Boston, for the first time, the new and officially recognized Confederated Colonial Flag.
This was the first authoritative recognition of any standard having the color of Congressional action as a distinctively accepted flag to represent the confederated and co”perative union of the Colonies in their resistance of tyranny, injustice and oppression. And this was the first time in the history of the world when thirteen alternate red and white stripes was the foundation field of any national standard.”
Campbell P. 50.
“For nearly seventy years before the Revolutionary War broke out, the red ensign of Great Britain was generally adopted by the American colonies. It was called the Union flag, because in the upper corner next to the staff, which is called the canton, were the red cross of St. George, representing England; and the white cross, representing Scotland. The combination of these crosses which indicated a union character, was prescribed in 1707. While the colonists were not lacking in devotion to the British ensign in pre-revolutionary times, they nevertheless took occasion to place some particular device upon it applicable to the individual colony to which it belonged.”
Smith P. 10.
“The Declaration of Independence, at Philadelphia, on July 4, 1776, transformed the hitherto British Colonies into Independent States; changed the Colonial Congress into as nearly a Continental Legislature as under the circumstances it could become; and made John Hancock the representative [P.54] head of the new government. The Colonial Flag, of “Thirteen Stripes and British Union,” thus became the Standard of the thirteen newly nationalized and co”perating state governments.”
Campbell P. 53, 54.
“From 1707 on the Union Flag and the red ensign, or Meteor Flag, were borne by both merchant marine and the royal navy. On land they floated over the forts and followed the marching armies. They waved, too, over remote wilderness posts, and over the forest-threading brigades of the fur trader.
Thus the flag of Britain was the colonists flag, endeared to them by ancient association and by the endurance of common hazards and triumphs in uncounted campaigns and battles. Quaife P. 35.” A Treatise On the Jurisdictional Significance of the American Ensign
“With this practice of nations, then, before them, and evidently applied by them, viz.: that of applying some badge of distinction in use in their armies to their national banner, combined with that of indicating different portions of their armies by different colors for their flags; and of two nations, when uniting, adopting as a common ensign something to indicate their union, and still preserve the original banners (both as to devices and color), under which they had respectively achieved signal triumphs, especially as this last example was that of the mother country, we may expect to see the colonies carrying out this practice in their Union flag.
They were British colonies: and, as we have [P.69] shown, they used the British Union, but now, they were to distinguish their flag by its color from other British ensigns, preserve a trace of the colors under which they had previously fought with success, and, at the same time, represent this combination in some form peculiar to themselves.
The mode of distinction by color could not well be applied by the United Colonies in a single color, as the simpler and most striking were exhausted in application to British ensigns; but, if applied, must have been used in a complex form or combination of colors. This being the case, stripes of color would naturally be suggested as being striking, as enabling them to show the number and union of the colonies, as preserving the colors of the flags previously used by them; and also the badge of distinction, which, at the time of the adoption of this flag, marked the different grades in the un-uniformed army before Boston. Hence, probably, the name, The Great Union Flag, given to it by the writer in the Philadelphia Gazette, before quoted, doubtless Colonel Joseph Reed, inasmuch as this flag indicated, as respected the Colonies, precisely what the Grand Union Flag of Great Britain indicated respecting the mother country.” Hamilton P. 68, 69.
“This idea became an accomplished fact upon the inauguration of the new government, in 1789. Up to that date the Stars and Stripes formed the flag of the “Thirteen United States.” Since that time the “Red, White and Blue” has been the National Standard of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.] is precise and pointed, but it is very brief. The entire subject is contained in one sentence of the Journal of the Continental Congress, and it reads as follows:
“Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes alternate red and white; and that the union be thirteen stars, white, in a blue field, representing a new constellation.”
This resolution was passed by the Congress, at Philadelphia, on June 14, 1777. It was nearly a year after the Declaration of Independence, and a year and a half after the meeting of the Franklin Committee on the Colonial Flag, at Cambridge, that the English Union in the American flag was replaced by the blue field containing thirteen stars.” Campbell P. 55.
“We cannot escape more or less difficulty when we search for light as to who designed and manufactured the first flag bearing the Stars and Stripes. The popular story bestows the honor upon Mrs. Betsy Ross. It is alleged that Congress appointed a committee composed of General Washington, Robert Morris, and George Ross to design a flag. These gentlemen called upon Mrs. Ross in the month of May or June, 1776, and commissioned her to make the first flag with thirteen stars to harmonize with the thirteen stripes which had been placed on the standard raised at Cambridge six months previous.” Smith P. 45, 46.
“One of the most famous events involving the flag in colonial times was the case of John Endicott, who removed the cross from the flag because he believed it to be a symbol of popery, a sentiment felt by many in the colonies:
In November, 1634, complaint was recorded that John [P.15] Endicott had defaced the English ensign at Salem by cutting out with his sword a part of the red cross in the flag that hung before the governor s gate, declaring that it savored of popery, and he would have none of it. He was a member of the court assistants, but for this insult to the king’s colors he was reprimanded, removed from his office, and disqualified to hold any public office for the space of one year.
In this sentiment, that his violent act indicated, Endicott was not without sympathizers; and soon after some of the militia refused to march under the symbol that was to them idolatrous. After a grave controversy, which was not concluded until some time in December, 1635, when the military commissioners appointed colors for every company, leaving out the red cross in all of them, it was agreed that the king’s colors should fly from ships and be displayed over Castle Island, Boston, because the castle belonged to the king, and this flag continued in use there until the establishment of the commonwealth under Cromwell.
In 1651, when the English Parliament revived and adopted the old standard of the cross of St. George as the colors of England, the General Court of Massachusetts adopted this order: As the Court conceive the old English colors, now used by the Parliament, to be a necessary badge of distinction betwixt the English and other nations, in all places of the world, till the state of England alter the same, which we very much desire, we, being of the same nation, have therefore ordered that the captain of the Castle shall advance the aforesaid colors of England upon all necessary occasions.” Harrison P. 14, 15. A Treatise On the Jurisdictional Significance of the American Ensign.