12 weeks after its debut in the Kindle format, Liberty Inherited still tops Amazon bestseller lists!
Showing posts with label American History. Show all posts
Showing posts with label American History. Show all posts
Friday, July 20, 2012
Monday, July 2, 2012
Countdown to Independence: #7 Continue to educate yourself
Over the next several days leading up to Independence Day I will be posting the 10 steps that must be taken to preserve our great nation and the principles it was established on. Each day will cover one of the steps as they appear in my book Liberty Inherited. It is my hope that, in some small way, I can get Americans to start thinking of what they are on the verge of throwing away. Today's posting covers step number #7. I recommend reading the previous posts for step #1 through 6. Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics.
7. Continue to educate yourself
Remember that ignorance and neglect are one of the causes of the rotting that is afflicting the roots of the Liberty Tree. As James Madison wrote in a letter he penned in 1822, “What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty and Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual & surest support?” This is what this book attempts to achieve. It was designed to be an introductory course to a part of history that many have been deprived of. Its purpose was to provide an informative and educational book that is easy to read. It is by no means an exhaustive piece of work. Therefore, I urge you not to take everything you read within these pages at face value. Instead I ask you to start your own journey of discovery. In doing so, I believe you will discover that the arguments I put forth within these pages are true and accurate.
With that said, the biggest fear people have with studying history is trusting the accuracy of the facts they are reviewing. To this I reply, “If you read one book on a topic you get one opinion, the author’s. But if you read four books on the same topic you get five opinions - those of the four authors and then your own. Once your opinion is established, you will be able to discern what rings true and what rings false.” This is the reason why it is not enough to rely on the history you were taught in school, even if you were one of the few who paid attention. In many cases it is nothing but the point of view of the teacher and, as Daniel Hannan told me, “When history is taught, it is taught badly.” So go out and educate yourself!
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Sunday, June 17, 2012
An Amazon success story!
For six (6) straight weeks the Kindle version of Liberty Inherited has been an Amazon bestseller. This week the paperback has also made its way onto the bestseller's list.
Liberty Inherited in paperwork
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
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 2nd 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
- 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.
Friday, January 27, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
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?
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
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 17th and 18th 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:
or order direct and save:
Thursday, November 10, 2011
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:
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.
“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.
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Back to School History Lesson
Last month my daughter returned to school. As a high-school junior, she is required to take American History. When I asked her about the class, she told me that they were starting from the beginning. “Christopher Columbus and all that” is how she put it. She then handed me the class outline. The sections leading up to the American Revolution was the same story that most Americans learn. It essentially starts with the discovery of America by Columbus and then progresses through the settlement of Jamestown, the French and Indian War, and terminates with the events immediately preceding the Revolutionary War, such as the various tax acts, the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Tea Party. It confers on the student the impression that nothing of importance was transpiring in Mother England during that time. That England was asleep until one day George III wakes up and exclaims, “My God, I have colonies. Let’s tax them!”
The reality is that there were many events that transpired in the mother country that profoundly influenced the development of the American colonies. In 1707, for example, the union of England and Scotland meant that although the colonies started off as English they fought Britain for their independence. The most notable and significant of those events was the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Although the Glorious Revolution took place almost 100 years before America’s struggle for independence, it did more to bring about the American Revolution than any other event in America’s pre-independence history. It could be argued that if the Glorious Revolution of 1688 did not occur or had the outcome been different the American Revolution probably would not have happened at all. Additionally, the success of the thirteen colonies forming into one constitutional republic would not have been possible without the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
The events surrounding the Glorious Revolution are so vital to the creation and development of the United States that in “Liberty Inherited: The untold story of America’s exceptionalism” I dedicate over a quarter of the book to the subject. In summary, the road to revolution started when James II wanted to return England to the absolutism that the monarchies on the continent enjoyed. In this system, the king has absolute power over everything in his realm including its people. In England, this form of servitude was restricted by a series of covenants or contracts, including the Magna Carta (1215). Upon seeing this threat to their liberty, the English rose up and through a series of events replaced James II with the Dutch ruler the Prince of Orange and his wife Mary. But before the Prince of Orange could become William III, King of England, he had to accept what became known as the Declaration of Rights.This declaration ensured that England would continue on its path to developing the tradition of limited government, of parliamentary supremacy, of personal freedom and of the common law. The limitations placed on the monarchy by this document meant that the king could not act without the consent of the people as represented by parliament. Additionally, it ensured the rights and liberties of individual Englishmen. It guaranteed his right to bear arms, to a speedy trial, to due process, to be safe and secure in his life and property. Like all good Englishmen, the Founding Fathers believed these to be their God-given rights and made sure that, in one form or another, they were included in the Bill of Rights. The fact is that the framers of the constitution used the declaration, the system of limited government it established, and the rights it protected as the template for establishing the United States of America.
Additionally, I believe that if James II had not been removed from the throne of England the United States would not exist today, at least in its democratic form. Once he assumed the throne James set out to reform the colonies along the same authoritarian format used by France and Spain. His plan was to form the thirteen colonies into four captaincies. This would be followed by the elimination of the colonial assemblies and an appointment of a Royal Governor with absolute authority and answerable only to the king. At that time, many of the colonies were just beginning to enjoy representative democracy. To eliminate it at this point would result in the colonies losing almost 100 years of the democratic experience they would need to establish the new nation. Under those conditions, it is highly unlikely that the American Revolution would have been fought, much less won. The events immediately following a victory by the Patriots would certainly have been different. The probability of establishing the liberty based country we have today would certainly have been almost zero. Instead, the liberty focused revolution would probably have resulted, not in a Washington, but in an American version of Napoleon, Santa Anna, Lenin, Stalin, or Chavez. Until a few years ago I, like most Americans, was ignorant of the Glorious Revolution. This ignorance was not out of a lack of interest but a result of the way American history is taught. This is not a partisan issue since both sides have benefited from keeping Americans uneducated. Conservatives do so because it supports the myth that the establishment of this nation was miraculous. Liberals do it because if the American people understood the origins of their liberties they would realize what a threat an ever-increasing and powerful government is to those liberties. Therefore, much to the chagrin of our British cousins, Americans are not informed of the struggles that made this country possible. This limited education has had dire consequences for our country. Without this part of our history, we do not have a context to put the American experience into. We lose the sense of what it means to be an American and clarity as what type of nation the United States was established to be. We fail to recognize the implication of being an English colony had for the development of the United States. More tragically we fail to recognize the dangers that threaten to eliminate our liberties forever.
As I explain in “Liberty Inherited: The untold story of America’s exceptionalism,” the founders of this extraordinary nation did not accidently stumble onto the system of government they established in 1789. It was developed over several centuries and, while I still think that America is based on a miracle, I now realize that that miracle took place several hundred years earlier in a place called England. In fact, the more I study the origins and history of our liberty the more I marvel at its existence. The more I learn the more I appreciate the improbability of its survival. This becomes strikingly clear especially when compared to what was going on in the rest of the world at the time, which, for the common man, was slavery and servitude. This leads me to ponder a couple of questions:If schools did not omit the tremendous struggles for liberty that were occurring in England at a time when the United States was nothing more than scattering of fledgling colonies, would we, as Americans, feel or think differently about our country?
Would we still be having the political debate that is currently dividing this nation? What do you think? Leave your comments and thoughts below.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)


