No, the “Appeal to Heaven” Flag is Not a “Christian Nationalist Flag”

During the ridiculous controversy over flags flying at the house of Justice Samuel Alito, the media and the left went into vapors over the inclusion of the “Free Pine” flag” or “Appeal to Heaven” flag — a flag with origins in the American Revolution. As I wrote at the time, this flag is neither racist nor extremist. Now, the controversy is back after a USA Today article by congressional reporter Zach Schermele, who wrote about how the “controversial Christian nationalist flag is hanging outside the D.C. office of a top Education Department official.”

The article goes on to note that:

“The flag, which was raised by rioters during the Jan. 6 insurrection… is adorning the office of Murray Bessette, principal deputy assistant secretary in the Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.

The “Appeal to Heaven” flag is the same that was flown outside the vacation home of conservative Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2023, according to the NYT.”

To make matters worse for many, Schermele links to Wikipedia, which is not generally used by the media as a reliable source and has been criticized for the liberal bias of its editors, including by one of its founders.

The fact that different groups have carried the flag does not change the flag’s history or meaning. The rioters on January 6th also carried American flags, including “Don’t Tread on Me” and other colonial flags. They are symbols of our revolutionary struggle.

As I previously noted, the Pine Tree flag was commissioned by George Washington. The phrase “an appeal to heaven” comes from John Locke’s Second Treatise.

In my forthcoming book, Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I explore the foundations of the American Revolution on its 250th anniversary, including the influence of Locke on the framers. The book discusses how one barrier to revolution was the view that citizens could not revolt against a King and owed him a sacred pledge of fealty. This was reinforced by references to biblical provisions such as Romans 13, where Paul the Apostle reminds Christians to obey civil authorities and be loyal subjects.

That view was shattered by Reverend Jonathan Mayhew, in his famous sermon “A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers” on January 30, 1750, from the pulpit of Boston’s Old West Church. Mayhew explained how such claims amounted to virtual blasphemy and that, when a sovereign denied natural rights bestowed upon citizens, they were not defending but defying the will of God by resisting.

Before Mayhew, however, Locke had articulated the same principle in discussing breakdowns in governance where citizens face power “about to enslave, or destroy them.” In such circumstances, they may justify their actions not with an appeal to their oppressors, but to the source of their natural rights: the Almighty. In writing about the right to revolution, Locke wrote the following in his Second Treatise:

“The People have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no Judge on Earth, but to appeal to Heaven. For the Rulers, in such attempts, exercising a Power the People never put into their hands (who can never be supposed to consent, that any body should rule over them for their harm) do that, which they have not a right to do. And where the Body of the People, or any single Man, is deprived of their Right, or is under the Exercise of a power without right, and have no Appeal on Earth, there they have a liberty to appeal to Heaven, whenever they judge the Cause of sufficient moment.”

Locke goes on to write that the ultimate source of rights rested with God, not the government or “positive laws” created by the government:

“… they have, by a Law antecedent and paramount to all positive Laws of men, reserv’d that ultimate Determination to themselves, which belongs to all Mankind, where there lies no Appeal on Earth, viz. to judge whether they have just Cause to make their Appeal to Heaven. And this Judgment they cannot part with, it being out of a Man’s power so to submit himself to another, as to give him a liberty to destroy him; God and Nature never allowing a Man so to abandon himself, as to neglect his own preservation: And since he cannot take away his own Life, neither can he give another power to take it.”

Locke’s hold on the Framers was evident throughout the Declaration, early writings, and, of course, the Appeal to Heaven flag.

It is not a “Christian nationalist” symbol. Ironically, it is a symbol that shows that natural rights transcend any national government. Natural rights are recognized by other religions. They can also be embraced by the non-religious as human rights that cannot be denied by any government. Locke is considered one of the most important writers of the Enlightenment.

If nationalist is meant to refer to the pride and identification as Americans, the flag is certainly that and legitimately so. It is an American creation and ties us to our common article of faith in natural rights.

The Pine Tree or Appeal to Heaven flag has flown throughout our history, even outside government buildings in San Francisco (hardly a bastion of Christian nationalism). It reflects a core principle of our unique revolution: that our rights preceded government and belong to us as human beings.

The controversy over this article notably follows a similar kerfuffle caused by Sen. Tim Kaine (D. Va.), who denounced a nominee who believed in natural law and the concept of God-given rights. Kaine even called those who believed in such a basis for government as akin to Islamic terrorists. To do so was to effectively lump Alexander Hamilton with Ayatollah Khomeini.

Kaine was upset after a Trump nominee for a State Department position was an extremist, cut from the same cloth as the Iranian mullahs and religious extremists.

Riley Barnes, nominated to serve as assistant secretary of State for democracy, human rights and labor, had said that “all men are created equal because our rights come from God, our creator; not from our laws, not from our governments.”

It is a line virtually ripped from the Declaration of Independence, our founding document that is about to celebrate its 250th anniversary. Yet, the line set off Kaine, who furiously labeled Barnes as an extremist:

“The notion that rights don’t come from laws and don’t come from the government, but come from the Creator — that’s what the Iranian government believes,” he said. “It’s a theocratic regime that bases its rule on Shia (sic) law and targets Sunnis, Bahá’ís, Jews, Christians, and other religious minorities. They do it because they believe that they understand what natural rights are from their Creator. So, the statement that our rights do not come from our laws or our governments is extremely troubling.”

After a torrent of criticism, Kaine later backpedaled on his attack on claims of natural rights.

Underlying both controversies is a modern resistance to the notion of natural rights as bestowed by God on all of humanity, rights that preexist any government. The “appeal to heaven” is a call for the protection of those rights that belong to all human beings as part of being fully human. Ours was the first true revolution of the Enlightenment based on those very natural rights. That is why this flag should be flown proudly by all Americans as the embodiment of the values that laid the foundation of this Republic.