Romney, the Anglo-Saxons, and the Misinformed

The recent hullabaloo over a Romney adviser stating that Romney understands better than President Obama the special relationship between Britain and the United States demonstrates a total lack of historical understanding of what the term ‘Anglo-Saxon’ means.

What uninformed people do not realize is that long before the term was usurped by ignorant racists such as the KKK, it was used to describe a political system that is the basis of the English-speaking world.  

 As I explain in my book, Liberty Inherited, Britain, and specifically England as an island nation, developed much differently than mainland Europe. As early as 500 A.D., with the Anglo-Saxon invasion led by the Germanic brothers Hengist and Horsa, we can identify the beginning of a cultural--not racial--character that continues to this day. As Churchill explains in the History of the English-Speaking Peoples, the Saxons created a “strong strain of individualism based upon land-ownership [private property]” that was to “play a persistent part in the politics of England.” In The English Constitution and Legal History Colin Rhys-Lovell explains that as early as 800AD the Anglo-Saxons considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen.  This was reflected in their laws and government, which established that

• All decisions in the selection of leaders had to be with the consent of the people, preferably by full consensus, not just the majority.
• The laws by which they were governed were considered natural laws given by divine dispensation.
• Power was disbursed among the people and never allowed to concentrate in any one person or group. 
• Primary responsibility for resolving problems rested first of all with the individual, then the family, then the tribe or community, then the region, and finally, the nation.
• They were organized into small, manageable groups where every adult had a voice and a vote.
•  They believed the rights of the individual were considered unalienable and could not be violated without risking the wrath of divine justice as well as civil retribution by the people’s judges. (Incredibly, as early as 800AD the Anglo-Saxons had the legal practice of trial by jury)

This highlights what Walter Russell Mead writes in God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World, “The Anglo-Saxons in the seventh and eighth centuries were free people, and that England owed its liberty and its most important institutions to these ancient traditions.” 

Thus, based on its Anglo-Saxon heritage, England became the birthplace of the principles that are (or were) the foundation of liberty—liberty the English-speaking world now takes for granted.  Additionally, it is the foundation of what was to become known as ‘Liberal Democracy.’

In fact, I argue that there would be no such thing as human rights if not for the Anglo-Saxons since their principles of individual rights, rule of law, and the limited power of government were alien to the system of government that developed on the continent or anywhere else in the world. It must be noted that at the time the system of government that was established on continental Europe evolved from the absolute rule that the Roman Emperors enjoyed. Under that system an all-powerful prince owned everything including all the land and the people within his realm.  (Note: this is why England (Britain after the unification of 1707) never has had a Napoleon, a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Franco or a Stalin.  It is contrary to their culture.)

Additionally, which may surprise many of us in the English-speaking world, much of the non-English speaking world sees the glaring similarities rather than subtle differences between our countries.  In the 19^th and 20^th centuries, the United States and the British Empire were often jointly referred to as the “Liberal Democracies” or the “Anglo-Saxon powers.” (Note: Liberal in this case refers to the authentic Classical Liberalism, not the faux-modern liberalism of today)  Even as late the 1960s, French President and World War II hero Charles de Gaulle always referred to the United States and Britain jointly as “les pays Anglo-Saxonnes” (the Anglo-Saxon countries) and the term is still used by such enemies of liberty as Iran’s Ahmadinejad.

So, in it original form, “Anglo-Saxon” is a political—and not racial—term that describes nations that are based on the Anglo-Saxon principles of limited government, individual rights, private property, and free-market economics.  With President Obama’s contempt for most, if not all, of these principles and his scorn for the anything remotely English it is hard to believe that he would have a deep understanding of the special relationship that exist not only between the U.S. and the U.K., but also between all the English-speaking nations that comprise the Anglosphere. 

It is regrettable that the Romney adviser stated that Romney’s understanding of the ‘special relationship’ was due to his “Anglo-Saxon heritage” (as opposed to his worldview) since it denotes the commonly, yet ill-informed, understanding of the term as being racial.  Otherwise, what he said was 100% on target!

The Cause

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

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.