Guy's Books and Thoughts

James II managed to alienate the churchmen of the Established Anglican
church, by his actions favoring Roman Catholics. The Anglicans did
not care for other Protestants or Dissenters. But they did not want to
convert to Rome either. James' policies cost him support of the
Anglicans, so he tried to appeal to the outsiders such as Roman
Catholics and Dissenters by professing toleration of faiths with his
Declarations of Indulgences. Not all Dissenters bought into James'
program. Some Dissenters even supported or encouraged the Anglicans
who opposed the Declaration. In addition James also managed to
alienate other rulers such as the Elector of Brandenburg. William of
Orange, who had earlier supported James, turned against him. Perhaps
James thought his actions to be reasonable since he was allied with
Louis XIV, the most powerful sovereign in Europe.

While people did not immediately flock to William, when he landed in
Britain, support for him build began to build. People of the opposing
political factions (Whigs and Tories) defected to him. One of the
defectors was John Churchill, the ancestor of Winston Churchill.

Before crossing the English Channel to England, William had secured
alliances with Catholic and Protestant countries, to protect his home
country from a possible attack from his enemy King Louis XIV. Checking
the power or the most powerful sovereign ruler in Europe was THE goal
of William's foreign policy, not forming a Protestant league. Though
it is not mentioned in the book, the pope supported Protestant King
William over Catholic King James. The pope was in conflict with
James's ally, Louis over control of the French bishops.

The Catholic historian Lord Acton remarked that power corrupts and
that absolute power corrupts absolutely. Charles and James who
preceded William tried to move England toward absolutism with power
concentrated in the throne. They could run the country without the
Parliament. When William came to England neither he nor the
Parliament had absolute power. To become king, William had to submit
to certain restrictions.

The Glorious Revolution provided for religious toleration. People who
were not part of the established Church of England could be members of
other church bodies, without being fined or prosecuted. This
toleration would be seen as limited by today's standards, since one
could not hold office unless one was a member of the established
church. However there was a loophole which allowed non-members to
hold office it they sort of became members, showing up to an
established church service a few times a year. In summary this
revolution had an established church with some toleration of other
churches. The American Revolution, as Dinesh D'Souza points out, went
a step further in not having a nationally established church.

The author argues persuasively that the Glorious Revolution did
provide some of the foundation for the American Revolution and the
Constitution. The ideas of limitation of powers and guarantee of
rights can be seen in the documents from the time of that period. The
author provides the text of some of those documents in the appendix.

APPLICATIONS (?)

I must add certain aspects of the book made me think of other things.
For example William's use of the printing press reminded me of Mao,
who also valued the printing press. In Mao's case the printing press
was used to indoctrinate his followers. In William's case it was used
to sway English public opinion to favoring the Dutch over the French.
Mao also knew the value of good press. He welcomed journalist Edgar
Snow, who wrote a book which painted the communists in a favorable
light. Mao also knew how to turn a negative event into a positive
event. Mao's desperate retreat was called "The Long March" and painted
as a victory.

If memory serves me correctly, the book mentions an incident in which
an enemy army or fortress is captured because there was a traitor in
the midst. This reminds me of the Japanese historical television drama
in which the strategist Kansuke Yamamoto captures a castle by having a
leader in the castle give the defenders the wrong advice, leaving the
castle open to capture. I am also reminded of how King David told
Hushai not to accompany him in his retreat from Absalom. Instead David
had Hushai pretend to serve Absalom. Hushai countered the good advice
of Absalom's counselor, Ahithopel. This enabled David to escape
annihilation. (See 2 Samuel 15:31-34 and 17:1-24).

While weapons are certainly important in a war, there is also the non
weapons aspect in waging war. One must use intellect as well as
muscle. War seems to also be a matter of political maneuver as well
as battle. Unfortunately too many politicians pay too much attention
to politics and not enough to waging a successful war. While I agree
that civilian control of the military is necessary, excessive
intervention of civilian leaders in military matters can lead to
disaster. But this problem of excessive civilian interference in
military matters is an old one. It did not start with America. The
Chinese strategist Sun Tzu complained about excessive civilian
interference in his book THE ART OF WAR. And believe it or not there
are times when the civilian is right. The Union Army would not have
won had it not been for the strategic vision and constant
aggressiveness of Lincoln in pursuing victory in the Civil War.