Countdown to Independence Day: #2 America is based on an idea

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 #2.  I recommend reading the previous post for step #1.  Please note that any additional comments that I add to the original text will be in italics. 

 

2. Always remember that America is based on an idea

In 1701 Daniel Defoe, author of Robinson Crusoe, wrote a poem titled "True-born Englishman."  In that poem Defoe uses satire to demonstrate that there is no such thing as a “true-born Englishmen” because at that time Englishmen were a mix of Anglo, Saxon, Roman, Norman, and Celtic blood.   He finalized his poem putting forth the argument that being English has nothing to do with blood but everything to do with accepting a given set of principles and ideas. 

This rings even more true for Americans. The previous chapter explains that being American is a choice. Choosing to accept American values is what makes you an American. This is regardless of skin color, religion, bloodline, or even where one was born. The biggest tragedy to befall the country that was established on the principle of all men being created equal is that we have allowed ourselves to be divided. It is true that this tragedy was started at the very founding of this nation but that does not mean that we have to continue to perpetuate it. There is no longer a place within the United States for racial bigotry. 

We can no longer allow ourselves to be divided into subgroups and then pitted against each other. 

We must as Americans stand-up to the hate-mongers and the practitioners of racial and gender politics, regardless of what side of the racial issue they may be on.   

We need to reject and refuse to be seen as nothing more than Americans. It should be what is in a person’s heart and mind that counts and not the color of his skin or his bloodline. 

This bodes the same for people who have immigrated from other countries or practice different religions. As long as they accept American values we should welcome them as Americans. To do otherwise would be to just hasten the destruction of the principles that have made America exceptional.

Sadly, this is the one step that many Americans, regardless of their politics, forget about.  That is why I point out the hate-mongers and the practitioners of racial and gender politics.  Individuals of both of these groups ignore the essential fact that America is an idea and not a paradise for WASPs (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) nor a purgatory for non-WASPs.  As I point out in the book, this idea was in its infancy at the time of the founding of this great nation and that infancy is reflected in the policies and attitudes of the time.  Enlightened men were forced to compromise with the less wise and we ended up with policies such as the 3/5 compromise in the Constitution.  Fortunately, the adherents of Classical Liberalism realized that it would take time for the idea to fully develop and over the last 200 plus years we, as a nation, have evolved closer to achieving what those men could only dream of.  But that dream will never be truly realized as long as people, especially those in position of influence, continue to use race, gender, immigration, etc for personal and political gain.  Until that vile practice stops, E pluribus unum will remain nothing more than an inspirational slogan.

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.

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

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.