Thomas Chandler Case

* Name: Thomas Bradbury Chandler

* Primary Occupation: Anglican Minister

* Colony: New Jersey

* Town: Elizabethtown

* Port City: No

Thomas Bradbury Chandler was born on April 26, 1726 in Woodstock, Connecticut. While at Yale College, he encountered a strong Episcopalian hold on the school. After he graduated in 1745, he taught in Woodstock for two years, while reading theological works. In 1747, he was called to be the minister at St. John's church in Elizabethtown, New Jersey where he served for 40 years. When the talk of a revolution started, he was on the side of the Loyalists. He heartily discouraged a revolution and in 1775 wrote a pamphlet on his views against the Continental Congress. He eventually left to go England because he couldn't stand what was happening in America and only came back in 1785. He died minister of the church in Elizabethtown.

An idea that Chandler would have agreed with is that there is a difference between personal and political rights, and that the colonists were confusing the two with each other. Chandler would say that Parliament has the right to make laws for Americans because "the political rights of the colonies or the powers of government communicated to them are more limited, and their nature, quality, and extent depend altogether upon the patent or charter which first created and instituted them" ("Parliament Is Not Abusing..." page 2). This is different from the birthright of every human being of life, liberty, and estate. As an individual, everyone has the right to the "blessings" of life, but "as corporations created by the crown, they are confined within the primitive views of their institution. Whether, therefore, their indulgence is scanty or liberal can be no cause of complaint; for when they accepted of their chraters they tacitly submitted to the terms and conditions of them," ("Parliament" pg 2). He would have believed that every Englishman and citizen would be under Parliament's jurisdiction.

Another idea that Chandler would have agreed with is that the American people were represented in Parliament, so their "no taxation without representation" was invalid. He would have believed that the "opinion of the House of