Constutiton, What Constitution?

Having a name like John Hancock, I have read the Declaration of Independence hundreds of times.  Yet, until I wrote Liberty Inherited: The Untold Story of America’s Exceptionalism, I never gave much thought to the line:

 “He [George III] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution ….”

But after writing the book I started to ponder:

“What constitution is Mr. Jefferson referring to?”

The Constitution of the United States was still a decade away. So he could not have been referring to it.

Mr. Jefferson used the singular “Constitution” rather than the plural “Constitutions,” which implies that it covered all the colonies and bound George III.  So he could not have been referring to any constitutions that the individual colonies had since any one would not have covered all thirteen and George III would not have been bound by them.

“Maybe he was referring to the Colonial Charters?” I thought, “George III would have been bound by them.”

While that is true, each charter applied to only a few colonies so, again, the singular “constitution” would not be applicable.  Furthermore, Mr. Jefferson specifically uses the term “charters” when referring to those documents.

So what Constitution is Mr. Jefferson referring to?

By looking beyond 1776, beyond the Atlantic, I now understand that the constitution Mr. Jefferson was referring to was the English Constitution that ensured the rights that “all Englishmen are naturally entitled to.”

Most Americans do not realize that there was an English constitution.  This is probably because it, unlike its American off-spring, was not a written formal document.  It was more like English Common Law that evolved through precedence; a living constitution that was constantly being changed by new charters, parliamentary action, and royal prerogative.

Unfortunately, in modern Britain the constitution has evolved itself into extinction but in the mid-1700s is was still a very vital and revered element of English politics.  It, more than anything else, defined what an Englishman was since it distinguished the free-born Englander from his servitude-born continental neighbor.   As the lyrics in Rule Britannia goes:

When Britain first, at Heaven's command

Arose from out the azure main;

This was the charter of the land,

And guardian angels sang this strain:

"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:

"Britons never will be slaves."

The nations, not so blest as thee,

Must, in their turns, to tyrants fall;

While thou shalt flourish great and free,

The dread and envy of them all.

"Rule, Britannia! rule the waves:

"Britons never will be slaves."

The charter the first verse refers to was the constitution that created the environment of liberty that would produce the Jeffersons, the Wahsingtons, the Adamses, and, yes, the Hancocks that made the founding of this nation possible.  It was the rights it guaranteed that the Patriots were fighting for from the first battles of Lexington and Concord until July 4th, 1776.  It also became the basis of the principle political philosophy this nation was established on.

I am sharing this because I know that many of you are exploring and studying the founding of this great nation.  For some, it is a return to a familiar but neglected subject.  For others, it is the first real attempt at understanding the founding of this nation.  So, whether you are increasing your knowledge or just starting out, I urge you to look beyond 1776 and beyond the Atlantic.  You may find an understanding that you never realized existed.

An Englishman’s Dire Prophesy: Why Democratic Republics Fail (Are we there yet?)

In 1793, William Young, then a Member of Parliament, wrote:

Ingenious and able men will then soon hit on the various paths to authority which the temper of society opens to them: they will feed the ambition of one with promises, the vanity of another with praise, the avarice of a third with gifts. But even in the simplest state of manners, it is not pure virtue that commands, for pure virtue is then no distinction; it is ability that commands. The stronger minds of the few must ever command the weaker minds of the generality. The stronger mind feels a right as it were to command the weaker; and what it feels a right to, it will assume it can, and by what means it can.

At the time, the French Revolution was just entering into its ‘Reign of Terror’ phase and there was much talk among Britons of eliminating the monarchy and establishing their own republic.  Young was one of several who wrote essays in defense of the British system and the rights it granted to Englishman.  One aspect of this defense is the warning of where a democratic republic could lead.

With the first line, Young is explaining the fact that ‘ingenious and able’ men will exploit whatever paths society offers them.  If the society is wealth focused, as in a free-market based society, then these men will rise to the top of industry.  If the society is power focused, as in a socialist/Marxist state, then the same type of men will rise to the top of government.  In both cases they will use the weakness of others (i.e. ambition, vanity and greed) to gain their wealth and power. 

In the following sentence Young warns against the tendency of democratic republics to discard traditional values.  In time, he cautions, virtue ceases to exist and only one’s ability matters.  No longer will society value the noble, the good, and the pure.  Achievement, either materially or in fame (i.e. celebrity status), will be the sole measure of those who the society admires. 

He goes on to explain that the admiration—or even idolization—that develops within the society results in those of weaker minds turning to strong minded for leadership.  In return, the strong minded feel it their right and duty to command the weaker and less able members of the society.  Thus, for the sake and benefit of the weak, the strong-minded will empower themselves to implement rules, policies, and laws that protect society from the weak-minded and the weak-minded from themselves.

The result is that as the power of the strong-minded grows, liberty, the promised by-product of a democratic republic, shrinks.  This, Young writes in other parts of the essay, leads to the most terrible of all tyrannical governments; an empowered aristocracy comprised of  ‘ingenious and able’ men unrestrained by virtue. 

It is amazing to think that at a time when the bloodiest days of the French Revolution was still to come and the ‘American experiment’ was still in its infancy, a man could have such an understanding of democratic republics.  Yet, it is not that incredible when we realize that he is not discussing government, but human nature.  As Young explains it, “We must take men as they are…and not as the poets and artists describe them.” 

As much as we like to believe otherwise, human nature is still basically the same now as it was back when Young penned his essay.  ‘Ingenious and able’ people still pursue wealth and power.   They still exploit the weakness of others to gain such wealth and power.  This is done in both business and government.  Therefore, to empower one in an attempt to restrain the threat, perceived or real, of the other only increases the possibility of tyranny.

I believe the Founding Fathers recognized this weakness in democracy and the saw that the way to minimize its danger was not to limit liberty, but to limit power.  This is why the founding documents focus more on the limiting of government power than individual rights.  Unfortunately, over the last 100 years we have removed many of the protections they built into the system and, as a result, we risk the danger that Young so eloquently warned us of.

About the same time Young wrote his essay, Benjamin Franklin was asked what type of government the United States would have.  In response he replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Yes, Mr. Franklin, if we can keep it indeed.