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.

Rediscovering Who We Are: The Origins of the 2nd Amendment

“Look beyond 1776! Look beyond America! Look to political traditions this nation inherited from England!”  This is advice that I give to those who wish to educate themselves about the Constitutional principles this nation was founded.  The debate surrounding the original intent of the 2^nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms is a prime example why I give this advice.

 “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” – 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America."

There are currently two opposing opinions on the 2^nd amendment. 

 

The anti-gun control argument is that the intent of the amendment was to place, directly into the hands of the people, one of the Constitution’s “Check & Balances.”   The reasoning is that an armed populace is not only an obstacle to tyranny, but maybe the last defense of freedom.  As Thomas Jefferson put it, “When the government fears the people, there is freedom.  When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” 

On the other side, those favoring gun-control point to the “well regulated militia” clause at the beginning of the amendment.  They argue that this clearly shows that the right to bear arms is limited to the state regulated militias and not the public at-large.  Therefore, the government has the right to limit (or control) the arms that individuals can buy and possess.

Which one is correct?  If we go by what is stated in the amendment both arguments have validity.  But if we look beyond 1776 - beyond America- and back to our English political heritage we discover that only one interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment is historically valid.  why the Founding Fathers thought it important to include the right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights.  

First, we need to understand that the drafters of the Constitution were Englishmen and that, from the initial battles of Concord and Lexington to the Declaration of Independence, they were fighting for their rights as “freeborn Englishmen.”   

 

Second, we need to understand that those rights came from the Declaration of Rights of 1689, which came nearly 100 years before the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  In my new book,”Liberty Inherited: The Untold Story of America’s Exceptionalism” I detail the English struggle against tyranny.

Englishman's Right to Bear Arms and the 2nd Amendment

In my last blog post, No 1776 without 1688, I discussed how many of the rights we take as being uniquely American were actually the rights that many Englishmen enjoyed in the 17th century.  I do this for more than just amusement purposes. By understanding the proper historical perspective of the founding of this nation, we get clarity into what motivated the Founding Fathers.  We get an insight into why they took the actions they did.  Lastly, we get an intimate understanding of the principles conveyed in the founding documents of this nation.

This is especially true for the Bill of Rights and its most controversial amendments, the right to bear arms. There are two current interpretations of this amendment.  One interpretation believes that the founding fathers intended the right to bear arms to be limited to members of "a well regulated militia." The other interpretation believes that the founding fathers meant for it to be a check and balance on the authority of government. Therefore, it is an individual right outside of the governmental system or establishment.

A cursory reading of the amendment lends validity to both of these interpretations.  But when we trace the right to bear arms back to its historical origins we find that only one interpretation is substantiated.

As I explain in my book, Liberty Inherited, the right to bear arms first appeared in writing in the Declaration of Rights of 1689. Like the Bill of Rights, the Declarations of Rights was the product of a revolution and the events leading up to it. 

By the time of James II ordination in 1685, the limits on an English monarch's power had long been established. But James did not like this and wanted to restructure the English government on the French and Spanish models. In both of these countries, the king had absolute power over the nation and his subjects. James knew this would require him to impose his will on the liberty loving and fiercely independent English people.

One of the obstacles to James' goals was that the English people were just as well armed as any loyal force he could assemble.  He could not entirely eliminate the ownership of weapons since many at that time relied on them for their livelihood.  Therefore, he used his royal prerogative to restrict the weapons that an Englishman could own to those that could only be used for hunting and sporting purposes. This meant that the average person would only be allowed to own small caliber muskets for small game and shotguns for bird hunting. This left the populace at a great disadvantage to royal forces and at the mercy of the King.

After waking up to the threat that James II posed to their liberty the English people overthrew him in what was to be known as The Glorious Revolution. Like the Americans 100 years later, they realized that they would need a document that would assert “their ancient rights and liberties.” That document was the Declaration of Rights and in its list of rights number seven states:

7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law

Please note that the intended purpose of arms was for ‘defense.’  Considering the motivating factors behind the document it is clear that the drafters of the Declaration of Rights saw an armed populace as a defense against government, in this case a monarchy, abuses of power. 

It is not inconceivable that the drafters of the Bill of Rights did not intend the 2nd amendment to, likewise, be a check on the power and authority of government. To do otherwise, is to believe that such learned men such as George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were utterly unaware of the document that guaranteed their rights as Englishmen.

No 1776 without 1688

There is no question that 1776 was an important year.  For nearly 18 months, Englishmen on both side of the Atlantic had been fighting and killing each other.  Only after it became clear that their “rights as Englishmen” were not to be respected by London’s ruling class did the men who would become the Founding Fathers of this nation decide that independence was the only option.  

That year, a rebellion became a revolution and it would end with the establishment of a new kind of government.  One based on the untried premise that man was capable of governing himself.   No longer was a monarch or elites needed to tell the common man what to do—how to live.  This became known as the American Revolution, but in reality it was a revolution for all of humanity and forever changed the world.

Most Americans are familiar with the significance of 1776, but very few know about the year that made the American Revolution possible, 1688.  Almost 100 years before the American Revolution, back in old England, another revolution took place. This was called the Glorious Revolution and it is a revolution that all Americans should remember.  For without the events of 1688—without the Glorious Revolution— there would be no American Revolution, no Constitution of the United States, no Bill of Rights, no Declaration of Independence. 

We clearly see this in the early writings and speeches of the Founding Fathers, especially those prior to the Declaration of Independence. The one common justification for their rebellion was that they were fighting for their rights as “freeborn Englishmen.”  For example, in response to the Stamp Act the colonists drew up the Declaration of Rights of 1765.  Section 2d states:

2d That His Majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain. 

In other words, they were reaffirming their “rights as freeborn Englishmen” and one would be hard-pressed to find a member of the 2^nd Continental Congress who did not utter the phrase at least once in a speech or debate.  

We need to remember that in most of the world at the time servitude and serfdom was the norm, not liberty and freedom.  So why did these august men believe they had rights?   The answer is the Glorious Revolution.  

  

Just like the American Revolution of 1776 produced such extraordinary documents as the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, the Glorious Revolution of 1688 resulted in an equally impressive document known as the “Declaration of Rights.”  This document, signed by William and Mary, King and Queen of England, numerated several principles and rights that would be reaffirmed in the founding documents of United States.  These include:

• The right to bear arms
• The right to trial by jury of their peers
• Innocent until proven guilt
• Protection from cruel and unusual punishment
• Right to bail
• Right to petition government

And, of course, the big one:

• No taxation without representation

As I explain in my bestselling book, Liberty Inherited, “This comparison of the documents from 1689 and those from 1776 reveals that there is a connection between the Glorious Revolution and the American Revolution. It supports the argument that the American Revolution was fought for English values based on classical liberal principles.”

In other words, there would not have been a 1776 without a 1688.

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