American liberty? Think again!

The Cause

If the American Revolution was not about independence, what was it about?

The Greatest Myth of the American Revolution

In this video I explore the question of what the American Revolution was about.  Was it just independence the colonists were seeking or did they pick up arms for something more profound?

The Greatest Myth about the American Revolution

Most people accept as fact that the goal of the American Revolution was to achieve independence from Britain. While this myth may have some truth to it, and the ultimate outcome of the conflict was independence, it was not the motivation for starting the war. Independence did not even become a stated goal of the patriots until the signing of the Declaration of Independence in July 1776: more than a year after the initial battles of Lexington and Concord.  A review of these 14 crucial months demonstrates that the American Revolution was more than a war for independence.

  

While it is true that men like Samuel Adams actively pursued independence from the beginning, they were a small minority. The fact is that there was considerable opposition to independence.  In early sessions of the 2nd Continental Congress delegates voted 2 to 1 against resolutions for independence. Even King George III declaring treason to be a crime punishable by death was not enough to persuade congress to pass a resolution for independence.  In the summer of 1776, independence was still far from being a certainty.  Only after intense days of heated debate, political arm-twisting, and behind the scenes dealings did a resolution pass on July 2, 1776. It is telling that, at this late juncture of the conflict, the New York delegation abstained rather than vote for independence.  This clearly shows that at the start of the revolution independence was not the intention.

Nevertheless, during that pre- Declaration of Independence period there were 19 military engagements, including the siege of Boston, the battle of Bunker Hill, and the capture of Fort Ticonderoga. The engagements occurred on land and at sea. Battles raged in several of the colonies and as far north as Canada and as far south as Barbados.  Altogether they involved tens of thousands of combatants and caused over 2500 casualties.  

This begs the question, if it was not independence, then what was it that drove the early patriots to take up arms against the mightiest power the world had seen to date; against people who they had previously regarded as fellow countrymen; against a sovereign to whom they had, until recently, considered themselves loyal subjects of?

The reply to that question is more complex and profound than the superficial “independence” answer most students learn. As John Adams and his nemesis Mr. Dickinson would both say, it was their “natural rights as Englishmen" that they were fighting for. Whether they were for or against independence, it is the one point that most colonists could agree. Only the staunchest Tory or loyalist did not believe that the government of King George III was no longer respecting and protecting those rights. It was the violation of these rights and their restoration that filled the petitions that the 2nd Continental Congress sent to King George III and Parliament. It was the King’s and his government’s refusal to address these grievances that raised the question of what to do next.  This would be resolved in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence.

In the meantime, men were dying to defend their rights as Englishmen. Even though it is more complex and profound than just the simple goal of independence the "rights of Englishmen" is an extremely natural concept to understand.  They are the very same rights that we take for granted today. In fact, they are the basis of what we commonly refer to as fundamental human rights.  However, back in the 17^th and 18^th centuries they were unique to England (Britain after the unification of 1707). Thus, in a world where the common people were nothing more than chattel these rights were exceptionally uncommon. In fact, they were so contrary to the way of the world that the English believed that the rights they enjoyed could only have originated from one source; God. Hence, we have the origins of our "God-given rights."

At the foundation of these rights, is the supremacy and sovereignty of the individual over that of the state. It is this supremacy that is the basis of the four fundamental principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free market economics.  The first two represents political freedom. This freedom limits the power of government while maximizing the rights of the individual. Since they realized that true freedom can never be achieved without economic freedom, the last two principles became an integral part of the "rights of Englishmen." Only when there is respect for private property and people are able to deal with each other openly and without government interference, are they truly free.

These principles can be seen throughout the founding documents of this nation. With its emphasis on “unalienable rights” and references to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” the Declaration of Independence is a restatement of the rights that each Englishman, whether in London or Boston, assumed he had.  Thomas Jefferson provided additional evidence of this when he included:

He (King George III) combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution… 

Since he penned this eleven years before the drafting of the Constitution of the United States, Jefferson must have been referring to another constitution: one that every colonist residing in British America would have recognized.  This leaves only one possible choice: the English constitution.  Unlike the Constitution of the United States, the English constitution was not a written document.  Instead, like English common law, it evolved over 1200 years of precedence, tradition, customs, and a series of charters that included the Magna Carta. It was this constitution and the principles of liberty that would allow England, which is the size of Alabama, to become a superpower that would dominate three quarters of the world.

It is not by chance that Britain would become the defender of the free-world; to be the only nation in the world to standalone against the tyrannies of Napoleon Bonaparte and Adolf Hitler; to lead the fight against slavery; to end piracy and open the sea lanes to all. It is also no coincidence that as the power of Britain waned the United States rose to take its place. For it would be "the rights of Englishmen" that would be the basis of the classical liberal ideas that would make the United States, like Britain before it, an extraordinary and exceptional nation. It would be these principles that would guide men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Madison, and even Lincoln into prominence.

There are various reasons why this aspect of the founding of our nation has been ignored, untaught. Initially it was due to the anti-British sentiment that was prevalent in this country and the desire to establish a national identity that is distinctly American. This was so successful that Americans came to believe that these principles are uniquely American. Unfortunately, this has had a decidedly undesirable impact on our nation. The lack of understanding of the true origins of the principles that established this nation has led us to be blinded to the erosion of those principles. 

This is the reason I wrote Liberty Inherited: the Untold Story of America's Exceptionalism. The book tells the story of the roots of our liberty. By reading the book, you will gain a clarity and understanding of the founding of this nation that you have never had before. This awareness will provide you with a new and profound perception of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and other founding documents of this nation.  I challenge you to read the book. It will change your view of this nation, its place in the world, and the threats, both internal and external, to its existence.

Order your copy today at:

Amazon.com 

or order direct and save:

Liberty Inherited

Constitution! 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.




John Hancock is a historian specializing in the History of the English-speaking peoples.  His new book Liberty Inherited: The Untold Story of America’s Exceptionalism is due out next month.  Click below if you would like details on how you can get a personalized signed copy for just $13.50 (+S&H).  A saving of 20% off its cover price.

Click below for more details:

http://www.libertyinherited.com.

Generations: What a Difference a Century Makes!

I am currently reading “Doughboy War: The American Expeditionary Force in World War I” by James Hallas.  The book, which covers the war years of 1917-1918, is a collection of passages taken from journals, diaries, letters, personal narratives and unit histories.   I was struck by differences in attitudes of Americans then as compared to now. 

 

The following two passages are prime examples.

The first was written by a young American who was killed in the battle for the Ourcq River, fought in France late July 1918.  

America shall win the war.

Therefore I will work,

I will save,

I will sacrifice,

I will endure,

I will fight cheerfully and do my utmost,

As if the whole issue of the struggle

depended on me alone.

While I know that this does not represent the sentiment of every American, I do believe that it is indicative of the American people at the time.  Is it any wonder the people of this generation would start what would be called the “American Century?”  Or that they would go on to produce the generation of Americans that would come of age during the Great Depression and then go on to defeat the Marxist ideologies of Nazism, fascism, and communism?

It is striking when one compares this to the young people currently taking part in the Occupy Wall Street protest.  To them the above words are so foreign, the concepts so alien, that they might as well have been written by a Martian.  Unfortunately, a half century of entitlement propaganda, has ensured that these people will never be able to produce more than ever increasing demands.

The second passage highlights the difference in how we defined ourselves as Americans. It was taken from a German intelligence report in 1917.  This report was written shortly after the initial engagements were fought between the untested Americans and the veterans of the Imperial German Army. 

Only a few of the troops are of pure American origin; the majority is of German, Dutch, and Italian parentage, but these semi-Americans, almost all of whom were born in America and never have been to Europe before, fully feel themselves to be true born sons of their country. [Emphasis added by author of post]

 After decades of multiculturalism this too has become something of a lost sentiment or attitude.  Today first generation Americans are more likely to identify themselves by their heritage than as “true born sons of their country.”  

This forces me to ask, “Do we even know what it is to be American or has the concept become so diluted by hyphens that we that first generation Americans can no longer fully feel themselves to be true born sons of their country?”  

Oh, what a difference a century makes!                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

The Occupy Wall St Movement: The Marxist Corruption of Liberalism

Like many Americans, I have been watching the Occupy Wall St. protest spread across the country.  I have been reading the signs and listening to the slogans the protesters carry and chant.  I have also watched as celebrities, politicians, and the MSM line up in support of the movement.  Through all this, I am struck how much Liberalism has been corrupted by Marxism.  I cannot help recalling the words one of my favorite essays:

              
                     My Creed

I do not choose to be a common man.

It is my right to be uncommon...if I can.

I seek opportunity...not security.

I do not wish to be a kept citizen,

humbled and dulled by having the state look after me.

I want to take the calculated risk;

to dream and to build,

to fail and to succeed.

I refuse to barter incentive for a dole.

I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence;

the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia.

I will not trade freedom for beneficence

nor my dignity for a handout.

I will never cower before any master

nor bend to any threat.

It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid;

to think and act for myself,

enjoy the benefit of my creations

and to face the world boldly and say,

this I have done.

This essay could have been written by a TEA Partier or other Conservative “Right-winger.”  But it wasn’t.  It was written by Dean Alfange.  During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Mr. Alfange was the leader of the American Labor Party and in 1944 formed the Liberal Party.  Additionally, he held a chairmanship in Franklin Roosevelt’s successful campaign to be a three-term president.  He fervently opposed the GOP and ran several campaigns against them.  By any sense of the word, he was no “Right-Winger.” 

Now compare the words of this traditional Liberal (before the infection of Marxism) and those of the Occupy Wall Streeters and their supporters.  How far has Liberalism moved from its original principles!  The modern version has nothing to do with Liberating people and everything to do with enslaving them under the Marxist yoke.  That is why I call Modern Liberalism “Faux Liberalism.”