This
Months Study Page
Posted 12/31/02
The
Great American Culture
Okay,
folks, Ive about had it with people who do not have a clue about the origins
of the greatest country on earth. The
balance between the knowledgeable and the ignorant has swung way off kilter. Add to that the deliberate attempt to
subvert, revise, and destroy the basic ideals of American culture via internal
and external enemies, and you have a country in self-destruct mode. Meanwhile, the world waits to see how easily
the original spirit of America can be destroyed some in great anticipation
and others in gut wrenching dread. This
installment of the Study Page will take a closer look at some of those origins
that created the unique American Culture.
First,
we take an in depth look at the Father of the American Revolution, Samuel
Adams. Included here is but a glimpse
of the great thinking that embraced the spirit of this man. I encourage all to explore the links to
other sources of information that will build a better tower of understanding
for the Founders of America. To all the
nay-sayers who would have us believe the Founders no longer deserve any
reverence, I say, they would not recognize great character if it slapped them
in the face.
It is time to wake up and face up to the responsibilities to our ancestors and our progeny. We must rekindle the fire that burned in the spirits of these, the Founders of our American Culture. We must vow never to be slaves. Deb V
This from - http://thingsabove.freerovin.com/samadams.htm
Excerpts selected -
Samuel Adams
The Rights of the Colonists
The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting
November 20, 1772
I.
Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men
Among
the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life;
Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support
and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of,
rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the
first law of nature.
All
men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in
case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they
belong to, and enter into another.
When
men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to
demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous
limitations as form an equitable original compact.
Every
natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact,
necessarily ceded, remains.
All
positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of
natural reason and equity.
As
neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in
or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship
God according to the dictates of his conscience.
"Just
and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and
temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and
immutable laws of God and nature, [Page 418] as well as by the law of nations
and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the
former.
In
regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what
all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept
and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among
Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent
with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the
Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility
of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended
to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he
thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such
toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government
under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of
such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those
that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their
recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by
introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they
enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in
imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord,
war, and bloodshed.
The
natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so
far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the
whole.
In
the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own
rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an
arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more
renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course
of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.
In
the last case, he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should also be
willing to pay his just quota for the support of government, the law, and the
constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial judges
in all cases that may happen, whether civil, ecclesiastical, marine, or
military.
The
natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not
to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law
of nature for his rule.
In
the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for
the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them
reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence,
and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to
an honorable support from the same principle that "the laborer is worthy
of his hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the
assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they
please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that
of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters,
despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he
will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they
will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public
affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the
proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.
In
short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any
number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential
natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of
civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support,
protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is
before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud,
or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right,
the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate
such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is
not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.
American Independence
Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia
August 1, 1776
Countrymen
and Brethren: -
I
WOULD gladly have declined an honor to which I find myself unequal. I have not
the calmness and impartiality which the infinite importance of this occasion
demands. I will not deny the charge of my enemies, that resentment for the
accumulated injuries of our country, and an ardor for her glory, rising to
enthusiasm, may deprive me of that accuracy of judgment and expression which
men of cooler passions may possess. Let me beseech you, then, to hear me with
caution, to examine your prejudice, and to correct the mistakes into which I
may be hurried by my zeal.
Truth
loves an appeal to the common sense of mankind. Your unperverted understandings
can best determine on subjects of a practical nature. The positions and plans
which are said to be above the comprehension of the multitude may be always
suspected to be visionary and fruitless. He who made all men hath made the
truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all.
Our
forefathers threw off the yoke of Popery in religion; for you is reserved the
honor of leveling the popery of politics. They opened the Bible to all, and
maintained the capacity of every man to judge for himself in religion. Are we
sufficient for the comprehension of the sublimest spiritual truths, and unequal
to material and temporal ones?
Heaven
hath trusted us with the management of things for eternity, and man denies us
ability to judge of the present, or to know from our feelings the experience
that will make us happy. "You can discern," they say, "objects
distant and remote, but cannot perceive those within your grasp. Let us have
the distribution of present goods, and cut out and manage as you please the
interests of futurity." This day, I trust, the reign of political
protestantism will commence. We have explored the temple of royalty, and found
that the idol we have bowed down to has eyes which see not, ears that hear not
our prayers, and a heart like the nether millstone. We have this day restored
the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and
with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought and
dignity of self-direction which he bestowed on them. From the rising to the
setting sun, may his kingdom come!
Having
been a slave to the influence of opinion early acquired, and distinctions
generally received, I am ever inclined not to despise but pity those who are
yet in darkness. But to the eye of reason what can be more clear than that all
men have an equal right to happiness? Nature made no other distinction than
that of higher and lower degrees of power of mind and body. But what mysterious
distribution of character has the craft of statesmen, more fatal than
priestcraft, introduced?
According
to their doctrine, the offspring of perhaps the lewd embraces of a successful
invader shall, from generation to generation, arrogate the right of lavishing
on their pleasures a proportion of the fruits of the earth, more than
sufficient to supply the wants of thousands of their fellow-creatures; claim
authority to manage them like beasts of burthen, and, without superior
industry, capacity, or virtue, nay, though disgraceful to humanity, by their
ignorance, intemperance, and brutality, shall be deemed best calculated to
frame laws and to consult for the welfare of society.
Were
the talents and virtues which heaven has bestowed on men given merely to make
them more obedient drudges, to be sacrificed to the follies and ambition of a
few? Or, were not the noble gifts so equally dispensed with a divine purpose
and law, that they should as nearly as possible be equally exerted, and the
blessings of Providence be equally enjoyed by all? Away, then, with those
absurd systems which to gratify the pride of a few debase the greater part of
our species below the order of men. What an affront to the King of the
universe, to maintain that the happiness of a monster, sunk in debauchery and
spreading desolation and murder among men, of a Caligula, a Nero, or a Charles,
is more precious in his sight than that of millions of his suppliant creatures,
who do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with their God! No, in the judgment
of heaven there is no other superiority among men than a superiority in wisdom
and virtue. And can we have a safer model in forming ours? The Deity, then, has
not given any order or family of men authority over others; and if any men have
given it, they only could give it for themselves. Our forefathers, 'tis said,
consented to be subject to the laws of Great Britain. I will not, at present,
dispute it, nor mark out the limits and conditions of their submission; but
will it be denied that they contracted to pay obedience and to be under the
control of Great Britain because it appeared to them most beneficial in their
then present circumstances and situations? We, my countrymen, have the same
right to consult and provide for our happiness which they had to promote
theirs. If they had a view to posterity in their contracts, it must have been
to advance the felicity of their descendants. If they erred in their
expectations and prospects, we can never be condemned for a conduct which they
would have recommended had they foreseen our present condition.
Ye
darkeners of counsel, who would make the property, lives, and religion of
millions depend on the evasive interpretations of musty parchments; who would
send us to antiquated charters of uncertain and contradictory meaning, prove
that the present generation are not bound to be victims to cruel and
unforgiving despotism, tell us whether our pious and generous ancestors
bequeathed to us the miserable privilege of having the rewards of our honesty,
industry, the fruits of those fields which they purchased and bled for, wrested
from us at the will of men over whom we have no check. Did they contract for us
that, with folded arms, we should expect that justice and mercy from brutal and
inflamed invaders which have been denied to our supplications at the foot of
the throne? Were we to hear our character as a people ridiculed with
indifference? Did they promise for us that our meekness and patience should be
insulted; our coasts harassed, our towns demolished and plundered, and our
wives and offspring exposed to nakedness, hunger, and death, without our
feeling the resentment of men, and exerting those powers of self-preservation
which God has given us? No man had once a greater veneration for Englishmen
than I entertained. They were dear to me as branches of the same parental
trunk, and partakers of the same religion and laws; I still view with respect
the remains of the constitution as I would a lifeless body, which had once been
animated by a great and heroic soul. But when I am aroused by the din of arms;
when I behold legions of foreign assassins, paid by Englishmen to imbrue their
hands in our blood; when I tread over the uncoffined bodies of my countrymen,
neighbors, and friends; when I see the locks of a venerable father torn by
savage hands, and a feeble mother, clasping her infants to her bosom, and on
her knees imploring their lives from her own slaves, whom Englishmen have
allured to treachery and murder; when I behold my country, once the seat of industry,
peace, and plenty, changed by Englishmen to a theatre of blood and misery,
Heaven forgive me, if I cannot root out those passions which it as implanted in
my bosom, and detest submission to a people ho have either ceased to be human,
or have not virtue enough to feel their own wretchedness and servitude!
Men
who content themselves with the semblance of truth, and a display of words,
talk much of our obligations to Great Britain for protection. Had she a single
eye to our advantage? A nation of shopkeepers are very seldom so disinterested.
Let us not be so amused with words; the extension of her commerce was her
object. When she defended our coasts, she fought for her customers, and
convoyed our ships loaded with wealth, which we had acquired for her by our
industry. She has treated us as beasts of burthen, whom the lordly masters
cherish that they may carry a greater load. Let us inquire also against whom
she has protected us? Against her own enemies with whom we had no quarrel, or
only on her account, and against whom we always readily exerted our wealth and
strength when they were required. Were these colonies backward in giving
assistance to Great Britain, when they were called upon in 1739 to aid the
expedition against Carthagena? They at that time sent three thousand men to
join the British army, although the war commenced without their consent. But
the last war, 'tis said, was purely American. This is a vulgar error, which,
like many others, has gained credit by being confidently repeated. The dispute
between the courts of Great Britain and France related to the limits of Canada
and Nova Scotia. The controverted territory was not claimed by any in the
colonies, but by the crown of Great Britain. It was therefore their own
quarrel.
The
infringement of a right which England had, by the treaty of Utrecht, of trading
in the Indian country of Ohio, was another cause of the war. The French seized
large quantities of British manufacture and took possession of a fort which a
company of British merchants and factors had erected for the security of their
commerce. The war was therefore waged in defense of lands claimed by the crown,
and for the protection of British property. The French at that time had no
quarrel with America, and, as appears by letters sent from their
commander-in-chief, to some of the colonies, wished to remain in peace with us.
The part, therefore, which we then took, and the miseries to which we exposed
ourselves, ought to be charged to our affection to Britain. These colonies
granted more than their proportion to the support of the war. They raised,
clothed, and maintained nearly twenty-five thousand men, and so sensible were
the people of England of our great exertions, that a message was annually sent
to the House of Commons purporting, "that his Majesty, being highly
satisfied with the zeal and vigor with which his faithful subjects in North
America had exerted themselves in defense of his Majesty's just rights and
possessions, recommend it to the House to take the same into consideration, and
enable him to give them a proper compensation."
But
what purpose can arguments of this kind answer? Did the protection we received
annul our rights as men, and lay us under an obligation of being miserable? Who
among you, my countrymen, that is a father, would claim authority to make your
child a slave because you had nourished him in infancy?
'Tis
a strange species of generosity which requires a return infinitely more
valuable than anything it could have bestowed; that demands as a reward for a
defense of our property a surrender of those inestimable privileges, to the
arbitrary will of vindictive tyrants, which alone give value to that very
property.
Political
right and public happiness are different words for the same idea. They who
wander into metaphysical labyrinths, or have recourse to original contracts, to
determine the rights of men, either impose on themselves or mean to delude
others. Public utility is the only certain criterion. It is a test which brings
disputes to a speedy decision, and makes its appeal to the feelings of mankind.
The force of truth has obliged men to use arguments drawn from this principle
who were combating it, in. practice and speculation. The advocates for a
despotic government and nonresistance to the magistrate employ reasons in favor
of their systems drawn from a consideration of their tendency to promote public
happiness.
The
Author of Nature directs all his operations to the production of the greatest
good, and has made human virtue to consist in a disposition and conduct which
tends to the common felicity of his creatures. An abridgement of the natural
freedom of men, by the institutions of political societies, is vindicable only
on this foot. How absurd, then, is it to draw arguments from the nature of
civil society for the annihilation of those very ends which society was
intended to procure! Men associate for their Mutual advantage. Hence, the good
and happiness of the members, that is, the majority of the members, of any
State, is the great standard by which everything relating to that State must
finally be determined; and though it may be supposed that a body of people may
be bound by a voluntary resignation (which they have been so infatuated as to
make) of all their interests to a single person, or to a few, it can never be
conceived that the resignation is obligatory to their posterity; because it is
manifestly contrary to the good of the whole that it should be so.
These
are the sentiments of the wisest and most virtuous champions of freedom. Attend
to a portion on this subject from a book in our own defense, written, I had
almost said, by the pen of inspiration. "I lay no stress," says he,
"on charters; they derive their rights from a higher source. It is
inconsistent with common sense to imagine that any people would ever think of
settling in a distant country on any such condition, or that the people from
whom they withdrew should forever be masters of their property, and have power
to subject them to any modes of government they pleased. And had there been
expressed stipulations to this purpose in all the charters of the colonies,
they would, in my opinion, be no more bound by them, than if it had been
stipulated with them that they should go naked, or expose themselves to the
incursions of wolves and tigers."
Such
are the opinions of every virtuous and enlightened patriot in Great Britain.
Their petition to heaven is, "That there may be one free country left upon
earth, to which they may fly, when venality, luxury, and vice shall have
completed the ruin of liberty there."
Courage,
then, my countrymen, our contest is not only whether we ourselves shall be
free, but whether there shall be left to mankind an asylum on earth for civil
and religious liberty. Dismissing, therefore, the justice of our cause, as incontestable,
the only question is, What is best for us to pursue in our present
circumstances?
The
doctrine of dependence on Great Britain is, I believe, generally exploded; but
as I would attend to the honest weakness of the simplest of men, you will pardon
me if I offer a few words on that subject.
We
are now on this continent, to the astonishment of the world, three millions of
souls united in one cause. We have large armies, well disciplined and
appointed, with commanders inferior to none in military skill, and superior in
activity and zeal. We are furnished with arsenals and stores beyond our most
sanguine expectations, and foreign nations are waiting to crown our success by
their alliances. There are instances of, I would say, an almost astonishing Providence
in our favor; our success has staggered our enemies, and almost given faith to
infidels; so we may truly say it is not our own arm which has saved us.
The
hand of heaven appears to have led us on to be, perhaps, humble instruments and
means in the great Providential dispensation which is completing. We have fled
from the political Sodom; let us not look back, lest we perish and become a
monument of infamy and derision to the world. For can we ever expect more
unanimity and a better preparation for defense; more infatuation of counsel
among our enemies, and more valor and zeal among ourselves? The same force and
resistance which are sufficient to procure us our liberties will secure us a
glorious independence and support us in the dignity of free, imperial States.
We cannot suppose that our opposition has made a corrupt and dissipated nation
more friendly to America, or created in them a greater respect for the rights
of mankind. We can therefore expect a restoration and establishment of our privileges,
and a compensation for the injuries we have received from their want of power,
from their fears, and not from their virtues. The unanimity and valor which
will effect an honorable peace can render a future contest for our liberties
unnecessary. He who has strength to chain down the wolf is a madman if he let
him loose without drawing his teeth and paring his nails.
From
the day on which an accommodation takes place between England and America, on
any other terms than as independent States, I shall date the ruin of this
country. A politic minister will study to lull us into security, by granting us
the full extent of our petitions. The warm sunshine of influence would melt
down the virtue, which the violence of the storm rendered more firm and unyielding.
In a state of tranquillity, wealth, and luxury, our descendants would forget
the arts of war and the noble activity and zeal which made their ancestors
invincible. Every art of corruption would be employed to loosen the bond of
union which renders our resistance formidable. When the spirit of liberty which
now animates our hearts and gives success to our arms is extinct, our numbers
will accelerate our ruin and render us easier victims to tyranny. Ye abandoned
minions of an infatuated ministry, if peradventure any should yet remain among
us, remember that a Warren and Montgomery are numbered among the dead.
Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be
the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee,
supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice
of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and
hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the
tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, - go from us
in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands
which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget
that ye were our countrymen!
To
unite the supremacy of Great Britain and the liberty of America is utterly
impossible. So vast a continent, and of such a distance from the seat of
empire, will every day grow more unmanageable. The motion of so unwieldy a body
cannot be directed with any dispatch and uniformity without committing to the
Parliament of Great Britain powers inconsistent with our freedom. The authority
and force which would be absolutely necessary for the preservation of the peace
and good order of this continent would put all our valuable rights within the
reach of that nation.
As
the administration of government requires firmer and more numerous supports in
proportion to its extent, the burdens imposed on us would be excessive, and we
should have the melancholy prospect of their increasing on our posterity. The
scale of officers, from the rapacious and needy commissioner to the haughty
governor, and from the governor, with his hungry train, to perhaps a licentious
and prodigal viceroy, must be upheld by you and your children. The fleets and
armies which will be employed to silence your murmurs and complaints must be
supported by the fruits of your industry.
And
yet with all this enlargement of the expense and powers of government, the
administration of it at such a distance, and over so extensive a territory,
must necessarily fail of putting the laws into vigorous execution, removing
private oppressions, and forming plans for the advancement of agriculture and
commerce, and preserving the vast empire in any tolerable peace and security. If
our posterity retain any spark of patriotism, they can never tamely submit to
such burthens. This country will be made the field of bloody contention till it
gain that independence for which nature formed it. It is, therefore, injustice
and cruelty to our offspring, and would stamp us with the character of baseness
and cowardice, to leave the salvation of this country to be worked out by them
with accumulated difficulty and danger.
Prejudice,
I confess, may warp our judgments. Let us hear the decision of Englishmen on
this subject, who cannot be suspected of partiality. "The Americans,"
they say, "are but little short of half our number. To this number they
have grown from a small body of original settlers by a very rapid increase. The
probability is that they will go on to increase, and that in fifty or sixty
years they will be double our number, and form a mighty empire, consisting of a
variety of States, all equal or superior to ourselves in all the arts and
accomplishments which give dignity and happiness to human life. In that period
will they be still bound to acknowledge that supremacy over them which we now
claim? Can there be any person who will assert this, or whose mind does not
revolt at the idea of a vast continent holding all that is valuable to it at
the discretion of a handful of people on the other side of the Atlantic? But if
at that period this would be unreasonable, what makes it otherwise now? Draw
the line if you can. But there is still a greater difficulty."
Britain
is now, I will suppose, the seat of liberty and virtue, and its legislature
consists of a body of able and independent men, who govern with wisdom and
justice. The time may come when all will be reversed; when its excellent
constitution of government will be subverted; when, pressed by debts and taxes,
it will be greedy to draw to itself an increase of revenue from every distant
province, in order to ease its own burdens; when the influence of the crown,
strengthened by luxury and a universal profligacy of manners, will have tainted
every heart, broken down every fence of liberty, and rendered us a nation of
tame and contented vassals; when a general election will be nothing but a
general auction of boroughs, and when the Parliament, grand council of the
nation, and once the faithful guardian State, and a terror to evil ministers,
will be degenerated body of sycophants, dependent and venal, always ready to
confirm any measures, and little more than a public court for registering royal
edicts. Such, it is possible, may, some time or other, be the state of Great
Britain. What will, at that period, be the duty of the colonies? Will they be
still bound to unconditional submission? Must they always continue an appendage
to our government and follow it implicitly through every change that can happen
to it? Wretched condition, indeed, of millions of freemen as good as ourselves!
Will you say that we now govern equitably, and that there is no danger of such
revolution? Would to God that this were true! But you will not always say the same.
Who shall judge whether we govern equitably or not? Can you give the colonies
any security that such a period will never come? NO. THE PERIOD, COUNTRYMEN, IS
ALREADY COME! The calamities were at our door. The rod of oppression was raised
over us. We were roused from our slumbers, and may we never sink into repose
until we can convey a clear and undisputed inheritance to our posterity! This
day we are called upon to give a glorious example of what the wisest and best
of men were rejoiced to view, only in speculation. This day presents the world
with the most august spectacle that its annals ever unfolded, - millions of
freemen deliberately and voluntarily forming themselves into a society for
their common defense and common happiness. Immortal spirits of Hampden, Locke,
and Sidney, will it not add to your benevolent joys to behold your posterity
rising to the dignity of men, and evincing to the world the reality and
expediency of your systems, and in the actual enjoyment of that equal liberty,
which you were happy, when on earth, in delineating and recommending to
mankind?
Other
nations have received their laws from conquerors; some are indebted for a
constitution to the suffering of their ancestors through revolving centuries.
The people of this country, alone, have formally and deliberately chosen a
government for themselves, and with open and uninfluenced consent bound
themselves into a social compact. Here no man proclaims his birth or wealth as
a title to honorable distinction, or to sanctify ignorance and vice with the
name of hereditary authority. He who has most zeal and ability to promote
public felicity, let him be the servant of the public. This is the only line of
distinction drawn by nature. Leave the bird of night to the obscurity for which
nature intended him, and expect only from the eagle to brush the clouds with
his wings and look boldly in the face of the sun.
Some
who would persuade us that they have tender feelings for future generations,
while they are insensible to the happiness of the present, are perpetually
foreboding a train of dissensions under our popular system. Such men's
reasoning amounts to this: Give up all that is valuable to Great Britain and
then you will have no inducements to quarrel among yourselves; or, suffer
yourselves to be chained down by your enemies that you may not be able to fight
with your friends.
This
is an insult on your virtue as well as your common sense. Your unanimity this
day and through the course of the war is a decisive refutation of such
invidious predictions. Our enemies have already had evidence that our present
constitution contains in it the justice and ardor of freedom and the wisdom and
vigor of the most absolute system. When the law is the will of the people, it
will be uniform and coherent; but fluctuation, contradiction, and inconsistency
of councils must be expected under those governments where every revolution in
the ministry of a court produces one in the State - such being the folly and
pride of all ministers, that they ever pursue measures directly opposite to
those of their predecessors.
We
shall neither be exposed to the necessary convulsions of elective monarchies,
nor to the want of wisdom, fortitude, and virtue, to which hereditary
succession is liable. In your hands it will be to perpetuate a prudent, active,
and just legislature, and which will never expire until you yourselves loose
the virtues which give it existence.
And,
brethren and fellow-countrymen, if it was ever granted to mortals to trace the
designs of Providence, and interpret its manifestations in favor of their
cause, we may, with humility of soul, cry out, "Not unto us, not unto us,
but to thy Name be the praise!" The confusion of the devices among our
enemies, and the rage of the elements against them, have done almost as much
towards our success as either our councils or our arms.
The
time at which this attempt on our liberty was made, when we were ripened into
maturity, had acquired a knowledge of war, and were free from the incursions of
enemies in this country; the gradual advances of our oppressors enabling us to
prepare for our defense; the unusual fertility of our lands and clemency of the
seasons; the success which at first attended our feeble arms, producing
unanimity among our friends and reducing our internal foes to acquiescence -
these are all strong and palpable marks and assurances that Providence is yet
gracious unto Zion, that it will turn away the captivity of Jacob.
Our
glorious reformers when they broke through the fetters of superstition effected
more than could be expected from an age so darkened. But they left much to be
done by their posterity. They lopped off, indeed, some of the branches of
Popery, but they left the root and stock when they left us under the domination
of human systems and decisions, usurping the infallibility which can be
attributed to Revelation alone. They dethroned one usurper only to raise up
another; they refused allegiance to the Pope only to place the civil magistrate
in the throne of Christ, vested with authority to enact laws and inflict
penalties in his kingdom. And if we now cast our eyes over the nations of the
earth, we shall find that, instead of possessing the pure religion of the
Gospel, they may be divided either into infidels, who deny the truth; or
politicians who make religion a stalking horse for their ambition; or
professors, who walk in the trammels of orthodoxy, and are more attentive to
traditions and ordinances of men than to the oracles of truth.
The
civil magistrate has everywhere contaminated religion by making it an engine of
policy; and freedom of thought and the right of private judgment, in matters of
conscience, driven from every other corner of the earth, direct their course to
this happy country as their last asylum. Let us cherish the noble guests, and
shelter them under the wings of a universal toleration! Be this the seat of
unbounded religious freedom. She will bring with her in her train, industry,
wisdom, and commerce. She thrives most when left to shoot forth in her natural
luxuriance, and asks from human policy only not to be checked in her growth by
artificial encouragements.
Thus,
by the beneficence of Providence, we shall behold our empire arising, founded
on justice and the voluntary consent of the people, and giving full scope to the
exercise of those faculties and rights which most ennoble our species. Besides
the advantages of liberty and the most equal constitution, Heaven has given us
a country with every variety of climate and soil, pouring forth in abundance
whatever is necessary for the support, comfort, and strength of a nation.
Within our own borders we possess all the means of sustenance, defense, and
commerce; at the same time, these advantages are so distributed among the
different States of this continent, as if nature had in view to proclaim to us:
Be united among yourselves and you will want nothing from the rest of the
world.
The
more northern States most amply supply us with every necessary, and many of the
luxuries of life; with iron, timber and masts for ships of commerce or of war;
with flax for the manufacture of linen, and seed either for oil or exportation.
So
abundant are our harvests, that almost every part raises more than double the
quantity of grain requisite for the support of the inhabitants. From Georgia
and the Carolinas we have, as well for our own wants as for the purpose of
supplying the wants of other powers, indigo, rice, hemp, naval stores, and
lumber.
Virginia
and Maryland teem with wheat, Indian corn, tobacco. Every nation whose harvest
is precarious, or whose lands yield not those commodities which we cultivate,
will gladly exchange their superfluities and manufactures for ours.
We
have already received many and large cargoes of clothing, military stores,
etc., from our commerce with foreign powers, and, in spite of the efforts of
the boasted navy of England, we shall continue to profit by this connection.
The
want of our naval stores has already increased the price of these articles to a
great height, especially in Britain. Without our lumber, it will be impossible
for those haughty islanders to convey the products of the West Indies to their
own ports; for a while they may with difficulty effect it, but, without our
assistance, their resources soon must fail. Indeed, the West India Islands appear
as the necessary appendages to this our empire. They must owe their support to
it, and ere long, I doubt not, some of them will, from necessity, wish to enjoy
the benefit of our protection.
These
natural advantages will enable us to remain independent of the world, or make
it the interest of European powers to court our alliance, and aid in protecting
us against the invasion of others. What argument, therefore, do we want to show
the equity of our conduct; or motive of interest to recommend it to our
prudence? Nature points out the path, and our enemies have obliged us to pursue
it.
If
there is any man so base or so weak as to prefer a dependence on Great Britain
to the dignity and happiness of living a member of a free and independent
nation, let me tell him that necessity now demands what the generous principle
of patriotism should have dictated.
We
have no other alternative than independence, or the most ignominious and
galling servitude. The legions of our enemies and death mark their bloody career;
whilst the mangled corpses of our countrymen seem to cry out to us as a voice
from heaven: -
"Will you permit our posterity to groan under the galling chains of our murderers? Has our blood been expended in vain? Is the only benefit which our constancy till death has obtained for our country, that it should be sunk into a deeper and more ignominious vassalage? Recollect who are the men that demand your submission, to whose decrees you are invited to pay obedience. Men who, unmindful of their relation to you as brethren; of your long implicit submission to their laws; of the sacrifice which you and your forefathers made of your natural advantages for commerce to their avarice; formed a deliberate plan to wrest from you the small pittance of property which they had permitted you to acquire. Remember that the men who wish to rule over you are they who, in pursuit of this plan of despotism, annulled the sacred contracts which they had made with your ancestors; conveyed into your cities a mercenary soldiery to compel you to submission by insult and murder; who called your patience cowardice, your piety hypocrisy."
Countrymen,
the men who now invite you to surrender your rights into their hands are the
men who have let loose the merciless savages to riot in the blood of their
brethren; who have dared to establish Popery triumphant in our land; who have
taught treachery to your slaves, and courted them to assassinate your wives and
children.
These
are the men to whom we are exhorted to sacrifice the blessings which Providence
holds out to us; the happiness, the dignity, of uncontrolled freedom and
independence.
Let
not your generous indignation be directed against any among us who may advise
so absurd and maddening a measure. Their number is but few, and daily decreases;
and the spirit which can render them patient of slavery will render them
contemptible enemies.
Our
Union is now complete; our constitution composed, established, and approved.
You are now the guardians of your own liberties. We may justly address you, as
the decemviri did the Romans, and say, "Nothing that we propose can pass
into a law without your consent. Be yourselves, O Americans, the authors of
those laws on which your happiness depends."
You
have now in the field armies sufficient to repel the whole force of your
enemies and their base and mercenary auxiliaries. The hearts of your soldiers
beat high with the spirit of freedom; they are animated with the justice of
their cause, and while they grasp their swords can look up to Heaven for assistance.
Your adversaries are composed of wretches who laugh at the rights of humanity,
who turn religion into derision, and would, for higher wages, direct their
swords against their leaders or their country. Go on, then, in your generous
enterprise with gratitude to Heaven for past success, and confidence of it in
the future. For my own part, I ask no greater blessing than to share with you
the common danger and common glory. If I have a wish dearer to my soul than
that my ashes may be mingled with those of a Warren and Montgomery, it is that
these American States may never cease to be free and independent.
This
from - http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/honor_to_founders/adams_warning.htm
Samuel Adams' Warning
To any who seek to condemn, if not to defame, The Founders for
alleged mistakes, an appropriate answer would be the one hurled by Samuel Adams
at detractors of "our ancestors" who proffered "excuses"
for their errors (essay, Boston Gazette, 1771):
"But we want no excuse for any supposed mistakes of our ancestors. Let us first see it
prov'd that they were mistakes. 'Till then we must hold ourselves obliged to
them for sentiments transmitted to us so worthy of their character, and so
important to our security: . . ." (Emphasis added.)
It is of interest to note here a remark of President John Quincy
Adams in his First Inaugural Address, after reciting the felicitous situation
of the American people under the Constitution's governmental system:
"To admit that this picture has its shades is but to say that
it is still the condition of men upon earth. From evil--physical, moral, and
political--it is not our claim to be exempt."
A particularly misleading and effective but most unfair and
entirely unsound technique used in criticizing The Founders merits stressing
here: comparison of their ideas and handiwork with a false standard of
theoretical perfection--never existing in the world then, or before, or since;
also unsoundly comparing their ideas and handiwork with developments of a later
period instead of using the only sound comparison: what had been known in the
Old World throughout history. The error and unsoundness involved in such false
comparisons is too obvious to need more than mere mention in order to make
clear the fallacy involved.
It is a tremendously important and never-ending problem for the
self-governing American people to be not only adequately informed but ever
alert and vigorously active in forestalling whenever possible, and combating
whenever necessary, any and all threats to Individual Liberty and to its
supporting system of constitutionally limited government. In this connection,
it is essential to keep in mind that the greatest danger lies in the subtle and
gradual, or piecemeal, approach of danger--by which the foundations are
gradually eroded rather than by open and outright assault; accompanied by harsh
attacks upon all who seek to alert the people to such danger whenever it
threatens. This was stressed by Samuel Adams--always in the forefront, as a
firebrand patriot, in the fight for Liberty and Independence, for the rights of
Free Man through Freedom from Government-over-Man--in an essay published in
1771 in the Boston Gazette, signed "Candidus" (quoted exactly as in
original text, including emphasis):
"If the liberties of America are ever compleatly ruined, of
which in my opinion there is now the utmost danger, it will in all probability
be the consequence of a mistaken notion of prudence, which leads men to acquiesce in measures of the most
destructive tendency for the sake of present ease. When designs are form'd to
rase the very foundation of a free government, those few who are to erect their
grandeur and fortunes upon the general ruin, will employ every art to sooth the
devoted people into a state of indolence, inattention and security, which is
forever the fore-runner of slavery-- They are alarmed at nothing so much, as
attempts to awaken the people to jealousy
and watchfulness; and it
has been an old game played over and over again, to hold up the men who would
rouse their fellow citizens and countrymen to a sense of their real danger, and spirit them to the
most zealous activity in the use of all proper means for the preservation of
the public liberty, as 'pretended
patriots,' 'intemperate politicians,' rash, hotheaded men, Incendiaries, wretched desperadoes, who, as was said of the
best of men, would turn the world upside down, or have done it already."
These remarks pertained to internal dangers to Individual Liberty
equally as much as to external dangers in that day, then involving potentially
the values inherent in the approaching Twin Revolution of 1776 (discussed at
pages 132-136, ante). These
internal dangers to Individual Liberty are ever present, potentially or
actually in greater or lesser degree, in every generation--from year to year
and day to day. This 1771 warning by Samuel Adams constitutes also one of his
most salutary admonitions to Posterity.
The American Ideal of
1776:
The Twelve Basic
American Principles
by
Hamilton Abert Long
This from
- http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/index.html
Quote
from John Adams
"We further recommend the most clear and
explicit assertion and vindication of our rights and liberties to be entered on
the public records, that the world may know, in the present and all future
generations, that we have a clear knowledge and a just sense of them, and, with
submission to Divine Providence, that we never can be slaves . . ."
And from http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/american_heritage.htm
in an
oration on July 4, 1787 by Joel Barlow at Hartford, Connecticut, in celebration
of the anniversary of the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence,
that:
"The present is an age of philosophy, and America the empire of
reason. Here, neither the pageantry of courts, nor the glooms of superstition,
have dazzled or beclouded the mind. Our duty calls us to act worthy of the age
and the country that gave us birth. Though inexperience may have betrayed us
into errors--yet they have not been fatal: and our own discernment will point
us to their proper remedy."
From same source
The
steadily developing American character of this early thinking, of these
precepts, stemmed from the fact that the American people were applying them in
practice, living by them, in increasing degree; though some abstract ideas, or ways of expressing them, were
selectively adapted from theoretical writings of foreign authors. Ideas applied
governmentally became uniquely American principles.
From - http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/aspects/demrep.html
An
Important Distinction: Democracy versus Republic
It is
important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as
dissimilar forms of government.
Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals
involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as
meaning merely the popular type
of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people
periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between
alternative and dissimilar forms
of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of
Democracy--a popular-type
government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any
discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound
understanding.
These two
forms of government: Democracy
and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp
contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal
safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The
Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the
rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.
A
Democracy
The chief
characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent
Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals
composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The
Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
This is
true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy. In the
direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little
city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the
electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all
decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions
of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the
Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The
Individuals rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such
a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy. Under
a Representative Democracy like Britains parliamentary form of government, the people
elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there
being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least
half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.
In both
the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majoritys power
is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal
system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the
door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United
States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention,
when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any
Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority. Examples
were provided in the immediate post-1776 years by the legislatures of some of
the States. In reaction against earlier royal tyranny, which had been exercised
through oppressions by royal governors and judges of the new State governments,
while the legislatures acted as if they were virtually omnipotent. There were
no effective State Constitutions to limit the legislatures because most State
governments were operating under mere Acts of their respective legislatures
which were mislabelled "Constitutions." Neither the governors not the
courts of the offending States were able to exercise any substantial and effective
restraining influence upon the legislatures in defense of The Individuals
unalienable rights, when violated by legislative infringements. (Connecticut
and Rhode Island continued under their old Charters for many years.) It was not
until 1780 that the first genuine Republic through constitutionally limited
government, was adopted by Massachusetts--next New Hampshire in 1784, other
States later.
It was in
this connection that Jefferson, in his "Notes On The State of
Virginia" written in 1781-1782, protected against such excesses by the
Virginia Legislature in the years following the Declaration of Independence,
saying: "An elective despotism
was not the government we fought for . . ." (Emphasis Jeffersons.) He
also denounced the despotic concentration of power in the Virginia Legislature,
under the so-called "Constitution"--in reality a mere Act of that
body:
"All the powers of government, legislative,
executive, judiciary, result to the legislative body. The concentrating these
in the same hands is precisely the definition of despotic government. It will
be no alleviation that these powers will be exercised by a plurality of hands,
and not by a single one. 173 despots would surely be as oppressive as one. Let
those who doubt it turn their eyes on the republic of Venice."
This topic--the danger to the peoples
liberties due to the turbulence of democracies and omnipotent, legislative
majority--is discussed in The
Federalist, for example in numbers 10 and 48 by Madison (in the latter noting Jeffersons
above-quoted comments).
The Framing Conventions records
prove that by decrying the "excesses of democracy" The Framers were,
of course, not opposing a popular type of government for the United States;
their whole aim and effort was to create a sound system of this type. To
contend to the contrary is to falsify history. Such a falsification not only
maligns the high purpose and good character of The Framers but belittles the
spirit of the truly Free Man in America--the people at large of that
period--who happily accepted and lived with gratification under the
Constitution as their own fundamental law and under the Republic which it
created, especially because they felt confident for the first time of the
security of their liberties thereby protected against abuse by all possible
violators, including The Majority momentarily in control of government. The
truth is that The Framers, by their protests against the "excesses of
democracy," were merely making clear their sound reasons for preferring a
Republic as the proper form of
government. They well knew, in light of history, that nothing but a Republic
can provide the best safeguards--in truth in the long run the only effective
safeguards (if enforced in practice)--for the peoples
liberties which are inescapably victimized by Democracys form and system of unlimited
Government-over-Man featuring The Majority Omnipotent. They also knew that the
American people would not consent to any form of government but that of a
Republic. It is of special interest to note that Jefferson, who had been in
Paris as the American Minister for several years, wrote Madison from there in
March 1789 that:
"The tyranny of the legislatures is the
most formidable dread at present, and will be for long years. That of the
executive will come its turn, but it will be at a remote period." (Text per
original.)
Somewhat earlier, Madison had written Jefferson
about violation of the Bill of Rights by State legislatures, stating:
"Repeated violations of those parchment
barriers have been committed by overbearing majorities in every State. In
Virginia I have seen the bill of rights violated in every instance where it has
been opposed to a popular current."
It is correct to say that in any
Democracy--either a Direct or a Representative type--as a form of government, there can be no
legal system which protects The Individual or The Minority (any or all
minorities) against unlimited tyranny by The Majority. The undependable sense
of self-restraint of the persons making up The Majority at any particular time
offers, of course, no protection whatever. Such a form of government is characterized by The Majority Omnipotent
and Unlimited. This is true, for example, of the Representative Democracy of
Great Britain; because unlimited government power is possessed by the House of
Lords, under an Act of Parliament of 1949--indeed, it has power to abolish
anything and everything governmental in Great Britain.
For a period of some centuries ago, some English
judges did argue that their decisions could restrain Parliament; but this
theory had to be abandoned because it was found to be untenable in the light of
sound political theory and governmental realities in a Representative
Democracy. Under this form of
government, neither the courts not any other part of the government can
effectively challenge, much less block, any action by The Majority in the
legislative body, no matter how arbitrary, tyrannous, or totalitarian they
might become in practice. The parliamentary system of Great Britain is a
perfect example of Representative Democracy and of the potential tyranny
inherent in its system of Unlimited Rule by Omnipotent Majority. This pertains
only to the potential, to the theory, involved; governmental practices there
are irrelevant to this discussion.
Madisons observations in The Federalist number 10 are noteworthy at this point because they
highlight a grave error made through the centuries regarding Democracy as a form of government. He commented as
follows:
"Theoretic politicians, who have patronized
this species of government, have erroneously supposed, that by reducing mankind
to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time,
be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions,
and their passions."
Democracy, as a form of government, is utterly
repugnant to--is the very antithesis of--the traditional American system: that
of a Republic, and its underlying philosophy, as expressed in essence in the
Declaration of Independence with primary emphasis upon the peoples forming
their government so as to permit them to possess only "just powers"
(limited powers) in order to make and keep secure the God-given, unalienable
rights of each and every Individual and therefore of all groups of Individuals.
A Republic
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very
different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The
Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect
The Individuals God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of
the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in
general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government
of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the
people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its
amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive,
Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of
course, the electorate.
The people adopt the Constitution as their
fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by
them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and
approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying
Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either
framing or ratification, is one of Americas greatest contributions, if not her greatest
contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through
constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to Americas
greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption
by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for
self-government. One of the earliest, if not the first, specific discussions of
this new American development (a Constitutional Convention) in the historical
records is an entry in June 1775 in John Adams "Autobiography" commenting on the
framing by a convention and ratification by the people as follows:
"By conventions of representatives, freely,
fairly, and proportionately chosen . . . the convention may send out their
project of a constitution, to the people in their several towns, counties, or
districts, and the people may make the acceptance of it their own act."
Yet the first proposal in 1778 of a Constitution
for Massachusetts was rejected for the reason, in part, as stated in the
"Essex Result" (the result, or report, of the Convention of towns of
Essex County), that it had been framed and proposed not by a specially chosen
convention but by members of the legislature who were involved in general
legislative duties, including those pertaining to the conduct of the war.
The first genuine and soundly founded Republic
in all history was the one created by the first genuine Constitution, which was
adopted by the people of Massachusetts in 1780 after being framed for their
consideration by a specially chosen Constitutional Convention. (As previously
noted, the so-called "Constitutions" adopted by some States in 1776 were
mere Acts of Legislatures, not genuine Constitutions.) That Constitutional
Convention of Massachusetts was the first successful one ever held in the
world; although New Hampshire had earlier held one unsuccessfully - it took
several years and several successive conventions to produce the New Hampshire
Constitution of 1784. Next, in 1787-1788, the United States Constitution was
framed by the Federal Convention for the peoples consideration and then ratified by the people
of the several States through a Ratifying Convention in each State specially
chosen by them for this sole purpose. Thereafter the other States gradually
followed in general the Massachusetts pattern of Constitution-making in
adoption of genuine Constitutions; but there was a delay of a number of years
in this regard as to some of them, several decades as to a few.
This system of Constitution-making, for the
purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put
into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people
form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited
powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given,
unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally
the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of
an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the
existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as
to violate The Individuals rights--to endanger the peoples liberties.
With regard to the republican form of government
(that of a republic), Madison made an observation in The Federalist (no. 55) which merits quoting here--as follows:
"As there is a degree of depravity in
mankind which requires a certain degree of circumspection and distrust: So
there are other qualities in human nature, which justify a certain portion of
esteem and confidence. Republican
government (that of a Republic) presupposes
the existence of these qualities in a higher degree than any other form.
Were the pictures which have been drawn by the political jealousy of some among
us, faithful likenesses of the human character, the inference would be that
there is not sufficient virtue among men for self government; and that nothing
less than the chains of despotism can restrain them from destroying and
devouring one another." (Emphasis added.)
It is noteworthy here that the above discussion,
though brief, is sufficient to indicate the reasons why the label
"Republic" has been misapplied in other countries to other and
different forms of government throughout history. It has been greatly
misunderstood and widely misused--for example as long ago as the time of Plato,
when he wrote his celebrated volume, The
Republic; in which he did not discuss anything governmental even
remotely resembling--having essential characteristics of--a genuine Republic.
Frequent reference is to be found, in the writings of the period of the framing
of the Constitution for instance, to "the ancient republics," but in
any such connection the term was used loosely--by way of contrast to a monarchy
or to a Direct Democracy--often using the term in the sense merely of a system
of Rule-by-Law featuring Representative government; as indicated, for example,
by John Adams in his "Thoughts on Government" and by Madison in The Federalist numbers 10 and 39. But this is an incomplete definition because
it can include a Representative Democracy, lacking a written Constitution
limiting The Majority.
From The American Ideal of 1776: The Twelve
Basic American Principles.
For another great article on the differences
between a Democracy and a Republic, including many additional quotes, visit
this site.
This from http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/AmericanIdeal/honor_to_founders/respect_due.htm
Respect
Due The Founders
The
indebtedness to The Founders on the part of American Posterity knows no bounds.
The more prominent leaders of the pre-Revolutionary years, as well as of the
period 1774-1788--embracing the life of the Continental Congress, the
Declaration of Independence, and the framing and adoption of the Constitution,
also of the formative years of the Republic in the first decade of its life to
1800--constituted a group unparalleled in all history with regard to knowledge
of government gained from sound scholarship and experience in self-governing;
high character, exemplified in practice with such consistency as to be
reflected in life-long reputation; such devotion in practice to professed
principles as to prove themselves to be men of genuine convictions; and
dedication to the highest ideals known to Man in the governmental field as
exemplified by those recited in the Declaration of Independence and in the
Preamble to the Constitution.
This is
unquestionably true of them as a group, judged by the entire record, despite
the inescapable frailties of human nature to which every human being is subject
and at time exhibits in some degree, as history proves. Such high praise of the
group has been accorded them uniformly and consistently in the light of sound
understanding by various leaders abroad as well as by all in America who have
been competent to judge adequately on the basis of sound scholarship and
intellectual integrity--with freedom from bias due, for example, to a desire
(revealed or concealed, conscious or unconscious) to belittle the philosophy
and handiwork of the group so as to undermine and change, if not destroy, the
governmental system and the traditional values involved, in considerable part
if not as a whole.
It
should, of course, never be lost sight of that this group of eminent
leaders--such as the signers of the Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution and the other famous governmental figures of that period--were
truly representative of a multitude of less prominent leaders, in the
localities throughout the country, who in substantial degree possessed
comparable virtues within more circumscribed limits, especially as to
experience governmentally. It is also well to keep in mind that the American
people in general of that period were unique in their active experiences in the
developing art of self-governing in the light of their heritage, of which they
were so keenly aware and alert in expounding as well as fearless and vigorous
in defending. Notable among these less famous leaders, for instance, were New
England clergymen who, as we have seen, were so potently influential in helping
to develop and nurture what ripened into the traditional American philosophy
and system of government: meaning basically constitutionally limited
government. A striking example is the Reverend Andrew Eliot of Boston who on
May 29, 1765--the very day that Patrick Henry introduced his famous Resolutions
against the Stamp Act in the Virginia House of Burgesses, in connection with
which he made his celebrated oration against royal tyranny--preached the
Election Sermon, before the royal Governor and the legislature of
Massachusetts, in which he stressed the right of resistance against usurped
power, asserting that submission to tyranny is an offense against God, mankind
and the State. These factors need to be remembered in any commendatory
discussion of The Founders--chief of all the above-mentioned Signers.
Many
books and other writings have been produced in praise of The Founders and their
handiwork. The only purpose of the present discussion of this topic, so limited
necessarily by lack of space, is to call attention to certain facts and points
as a stimulus to thought and, it is hoped, as an influential inducement to
further reading regarding this subject--preferably of the original writings.
One of
the most striking and persuasive testimonials, regarding the virtues and
talents of the members of the Continental Congress, is a statement by William
Pitt, the Earl of Chatham, former Prime Minister of Great Britain, in the House
of Lords on December 20, 1775, during the discussion of, and strongly
supporting, the proposal that British troops be removed from Boston. It is to
be found in the useful collection of writings and speeches of the general
Revolutionary period: Principles and
Acts of the Revolution in America, edited by Hezekiah Niles (1876).
Regarding communications from the Continental Congress to the Parliament
presenting the American viewpoint, Pitt stated in part:
"When your lordships look at the papers
transmitted us from America, when you consider their decency, firmness and
wisdom, you cannot but respect their cause, and wish to make it your own--for
myself I must declare and avow that, in all my reading and observation, and it
has been my favorite study--I have read Thucydides, and have studied and
admired the master statesmen of the world--that for solidity and reasoning,
force of sagacity, and wisdom of conclusion, under such a complication of
different circumstances, no nation or body of men can stand in preference to
the general congress at Philadelphia.--I trust it is obvious to your lordships,
that all attempts to impose servitude on such men, to establish despotism over
such a mighty continental nation--must be vain--must be futile."
The last quoted statement was induced by his
sound estimate of the staunchness of spirit of Free Man in America--including
not only these leaders in the Continental Congress but the American people as a
whole---as stated by him earlier in this speech:
"Of this general spirit existing in the
American nation . . . of this
spirit of independence, animating the nation
of America, I have the most authentic information. It is not new among them; it
is, and ever has been their established principle, their confirmed persuasion;
it is their nature and their doctrine. [Referring to an eminent and reliable
informant] he assured me with a certainty which his judgment and opportunity
gave him, that these were the prevalent and steady principles of America: That
you might destroy their towns, and cut them off from the superfluities, perhaps
the conveniences of life, but that they were prepared to despise your power,
and would not lament their loss, whilst they had, what, my lords?--Their woods
and liberty. . . . [They] prefer poverty with liberty, to golden chains and
sordid affluence; . . . will die in defence of their rights, as men--as
freemen. . . . 'Tis liberty to liberty engaged, that they will defend
themselves, their families and their country. In this great cause they are
immovably allied. It is the alliance of God and nature--immutable, eternal,
fixed as the firmament of Heaven!" ( Emphasis per original.)
This American spirit was manifested in one of
the papers to which Pitt referred: "Declaration of the Causes and
Necessity of Taking Up Arms," adopted by the Continental Congress, July 6,
1775, in which it was emphatically asserted:
"Our cause is just. Our union is perfect .
. . [our arms] we will, in defiance of every hazard, with unabating firmness
and perseverance, employ for the preservation of our liberties; being with one
mind resolved to dye Free-men rather than to live Slaves."
["one" is "our" in original.l
Pitt's just estimate of the American leaders in
the Continental Congress in 1775 was, of course, equally true of the members of
the same body which issued the Declaration of Independence a few months after
his tribute quoted above. Its President, John Hancock, truly reflected the
American spirit in this entire period in an oration he delivered in Boston on
March 5, 1774, on the anniversary of the "Boston Massacre" of
Americans by British troops, in which he extolled the restraint showed by the
Americans in not executing reprisals:
"May that magnificence of spirit which
scorns the low pursuits of malice, may that generous compassion which often
preserves from ruin, even a guilty villain, forever actuate the noble bosoms of
Americans! But let not the miscreant host vainly imagine that we feared their
arms. No; them we despised; we dread nothing but slavery. Death is the creature
of a poltroon's brains; 'tis immortality to sacrifice ourselves for the
salvation of our country. We fear not death."
It was in this address that Hancock reiterated
the typical American sentiment so scornful of unqualified submissiveness to
government:
". . . it is to the last degree vicious and
infamous to attempt to support a government, which manifestly tends to render
the persons and properties of the governed insecure. Some boast of being
friends to government; I am a friend to righteous government founded upon the
principles of reason and justice; but I glory in publicly avowing my eternal
enmity to tyranny."
Those principles were a main part of the basis
of the Declaration of Independence--of the Twin Revolution of 1776: for Freedom
from Government-over-Man, as previously discussed. As a leading spokesman of
the philosophy of 1776, Jefferson summed it up--and, at the same time, noted
the effect of the Declaration on the minds and spirits of the peoples of the
world--only a few days before he died (letter to R. C. Weightman, June 24,
1826):
"All eyes are opened, or opening, to the
rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open
to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born
with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to
ride them legitimately, by the grace of God."
The fact that the glorious significance and
value to Free Man in America of the proclamation of the principles of the
Declaration could be fully realized and preserved enduringly only through
endless and great efforts was noted at the time by John Adams (letter to Mrs.
Adams, July 3, 1776), who urged that annual celebrations take place
--"from this time forward forever"--to help keep alive the Spirit of
'76, stating:
"You will think me transported with
enthusiasm, but I am not. I am well aware of the toil, and blood, and treasure,
that it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these
States. Yet, through all the gloom, I can see the rays of ravishing light and
glory. I can see that the end is more than worth all the means, and that
posterity will triumph in that day's transaction, even although we should rue
it, which I trust in God we shall not."
With regard to The Framers of the Constitution,
it is of interest to quote another Prime Minister of Great Britain, William E.
Gladstone, who expressed himself in 1887 in a letter to an official committee
in America in charge of the celebration of the centennial of the framing of the
Constitution, in part as follows:
"I have always regarded that Constitution
as the most remarkable work known to me in modern times to have been produced
by the human intellect, at a single stroke (so to speak), in its application to
political affairs."
Earlier he had expressed a like sentiment more
briefly (North American Review, September 1878): ". . . the American
Constitution is the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the
brain and purpose of man."
The Framers were paid a high tribute during
their deliberations by Jefferson--then resident in Paris as the American
Minister--in a letter to John Adams of August 30, 1787: "It is really an
assembly of demigods." One of the most striking aspects of the Framing
Convention's accomplishment, noted by Madison and others, was the entire lack
of any model (for a federated system of Republics) to go by in this
Constitution-making in 1787. One of the Framers, James Wilson, commented on
this and other aspects of great significance in the following statement in the
Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:
"Permit me to add, in this place, that the
science even of government itself seems yet to be almost in its state of
infancy. Governments, in general, have been the result of force, of fraud, and
of accident. After a period of six thousand years has elapsed since the
creation, the United States exhibit to the world the first instance, as far as
we can learn, of a nation, unattacked by external force, unconvulsed by
domestick insurrections, assembling voluntarily, deliberating fully, and deciding
calmly, concerning that system of government, under which they would wish that
they and their posterity should live."
He called attention to the peaceful change from
the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution, in sharp contrast to other
nations' changes by war and revolution, in these words:
". . . the scene, hitherto unparalleled,
which America now exhibits to the world--a gentle, a peaceful, a voluntary, and
a deliberate transition from one constitution of government to another."
The foregoing brief presentation is sufficient,
by way of illustration, to indicate the more than deserved reputation of The
Founders for highest qualities and superb performance. Any attempt to belittle
them in either regard can only serve to prove either incompetence or evil
intent--either a state of being confused or an intent to confuse others--on the
part of the one culpable, when judged with intellectual honesty by any one
adequately informed. One striking illustration of such an attempt in the
present generation will be stressed as the discussion proceeds because of its
great, evil and continuing influence.
*******
I ask you to read again
this excerpt from Samuel Adams speech.
I find it to be a most profound description of an attitude that would
have protected Americas Culture, her credibility, and her uniqueness
if only it would have been adhered to. Deb V
Within our own borders we possess all the means of sustenance, defense, and commerce; at the same time, these advantages are so distributed among the different states of this continent as if nature had in view to proclaim to us - be united among yourselves, and you will want nothing from the rest of the world.
Samuel Adams
July 4, 1776, on Independence
Home Rant Page Feedback On Study Page Welcome!
Archive November/December
Study Page
Archive August/September Study Page