Skip to comments.Law of Nations
Posted on 12/12/2008 10:55:50 PM PST by Calpernia
Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Nature: Applies to the Conduct & Affairs of Nations & Sovereigns
1759. 1st. English Edition.
Emmerich de Vattel
Emmerich de Vattel's The Law of Nations was key in framing the United States as the world's first constitutional republic.
The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz's influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world's first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel's The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America's founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.
Virtually unknown today except amongst specialists, Emmerich de Vattel was born on April 25, 1714, in the principality of Neufchâtel, which was part of Switzerland. He became an ardent student of Leibniz, and in 1741, published his first work, a defense of Leibniz, Défense du système leibnitzien.
His most famous work, The Law of Nations; or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns: http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/index.html
Vattel's The Law of Nations, was the most influential book on the law of nations for 125 years following its publication. The first English translation appeared in 1759. Numerous editions of The Law of Nations were printed in England during the Eighteenth century, which were widely read in the American Colonies, along with editions in the original French. The first American edition appeared in 1796.
Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel's The Law of Nations arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel's influence grew.
Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, "The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me. In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, "of great use to Judges," that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected. In a letter to the Foreign Minister of Denmark, in 1779, Benjamin Franklin quoted Vattel, and "his excellent Treatise entitled Le Droit des Gens." James Madison, as a member of the Continental Congress in 1780, drafted the instructions sent to John Jay, for negotiating a treaty with Spain, which quotes at length from The Law of Nations. Jay complained that this letter, which was probably read by the Spanish government, was not in code, and "Vattel's Law of Nations, which I found quoted in a letter from Congress, is prohibited here." Later, John Marshall, during his thirty-four years as Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, quoted Vattel by far the most among all authors on the law of nations.
The Law of Nations and The Declaration of Independence
Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted The Law of Nations, as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of The Law of Nations in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, "I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ... ."
The study of The Law of Nations by the delegates to the Continental Congress, to answer questions "of the circumstances of a rising state," is reflected in the Declaration of Independence of July 4, 1776. The central ideas of that document are coherent with Vattel's arguments on the criteria of a people to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign. The Declaration of Independence states that governments are instituted to fulfill the "inalienable rights" of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and can be changed if they fail to meet these obligations to the people.
Governments should not be changed for light and transient causes, but only after a long chain of abuses to the fundamental rights of the people, with repeated requests for redress of grievances, which were refused. Repeated appeals were made to our "British Brethren," but since they "have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity," we are prepared to face them either in war or in peace. Therefore, we declare ourselves independent of the British Crown, with the full powers of a sovereign government, "to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do."
The inclusion of the central conception of The Law of Nations, Vattel's Leibnizian concept of happiness, as one of the three inalienable rights, is a crucial statement of the Declaration's Leibnizian character. The Declaration of Independence was prepared by a committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Robert Livingston, and Roger Sherman. Jefferson was assigned by this committee to write the draft of the Declaration, after John Adams turned down the task, because of his numerous other responsibilities. The fact, that Jefferson was a strong proponent of the philosophy of John Locke by as early as 1771, is often used as evidence that the Declaration was based on Locke's philosophy. However, Locke had argued, in his Two Treatises of Government, that the fundamental right of men is to "Life, Liberty, and Property." The inclusion of "the pursuit of happiness," rather than "property," as an inalienable right, was a crucial statement, that the American Revolution would be a battle for the establishment of a true Republic, rather than merely a dispute between two groups of aristocrats over the division of property.
The Law of Nations and The Constitution
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."Preamble of The Constitution of the United States
The Law of Nations was crucial in shaping American thinking about the nature of constitutions.
To this day, Great Britain does not have a written constitution, but instead a collection of laws, customs, and institutions, which can be changed by the Parliament.
The only place of appeal which the American colonists had for unjust laws was to the King's Privy Council. Attempts by the colonists to argue that actions by the British Monarchy and Parliament were unlawful or unconstitutional would be stymied, if they stayed within this legal framework which was essentially arbitrary. Although Vattel praised the British constitution for providing a degree of freedom and lawfulness not seen in most of the German states, his principles of constitutional law were entirely different from the British constitutional arrangements. Consequently, the American colonists attacked the foundation of the King and Parliament's power, by demanding that Vattel's principles of constitutional law be the basis for interpreting the British constitution.
American writers quoted The Law of Nations on constitutional law, almost immediately after the book's publication. In 1764, James Otis of Massachusetts argued, in one of the leading pamphlets of the day, "The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved," that the colonial charters were constitutional arrangements. He then quoted Vattel, that the right to establish a constitution lies with the nation as a whole, and the Parliament lacked the right to change the fundamental principles of the British Constitution. Boston revolutionary leader Samuel Adams wrote in 1772, "Vattel tells us plainly and without hesitation, that 'the supreme legislative cannot change the constitution,' 'that their authority does not extend so far,' and 'that they ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, if the nation has not, in very express terms, given them power to change them.' " In a debate with the Colonial Governor of Massachusetts, in 1773, John Adams quoted Vattel that the parliament does not have the power to change the constitution.
The adoption of a constitution, by the Constitutional Congress in 1787, based on Leibnizian principles rather than British legal doctrine, was certainly not inevitable. However, British legal experts such as Blackstone, who argued that the Parliament and King could change the constitution, were increasingly recognized by the Americans as proponents of arbitrary power. The early revolutionary leaders' emphasis on Vattel as the authority on constitutional law, with his conception that a nation must choose the best constitution to ensure its perfection and happiness, had very fortunate consequences for the United States and the world, when the U.S. Constitution was later written.
The U.S. Consititution
One of the first and most persistent in efforts to replace the weak central government with a strong one, was Alexander Hamilton. The government of the Articles of Confederation demonstrated its inadequacies during the American Revolution, and its failings became even clearer, when it was unable to halt the economic collapse which resulted from British economic warfare, following the 1783 Treaty of Paris. On Sept. 3, 1780, Hamilton, who was aide-de-camp for Washington, sent a letter to James Duane, who was then a Congressman, arguing that the weak central government was a disaster and urging specific reforms to strengthen it. For the next seven years, Hamilton argued in private letters, public appeals, resolutions, speeches in assemblies, and maneuvers at conventions, that a new constitution was needed to provide a strong central government.
Hamilton was a delegate to the convention which wrote the Constitution in 1787. His main concern was not the institutional arrangements of the government, but its purpose, and the creation of a central government strong enough to carry out that purpose. Three weeks into the convention, he delivered an all-day speech focussing on this. Whereas many of the delegates to the convention saw the purpose of government from the Lockean standpoint of "life, liberty and property," Hamilton's speech, coherent with Vattel's "Principle Objects of a Good Government," located the purposes of government as "the great purposes of commerce, revenue, or agriculture," "tranquility and happiness at home," and, "sufficient stability and strength to make us respectable abroad."
The concept of judicial review, which Hamilton had championed in Rutgers v. Waddington, was included in the U.S. Constitution. In The Federalist Papers, No. 78, "The Judges as Guardians of the Constitution," circulated as part of the debate over the new Constitution, Hamilton developed a conception of constitutional law which was coherent with Vattel's conception. Hamilton stated that it is a "fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness." However, the Constitution can only be changed by the nation as a whole, and not by the temporary passions of the majority or by the legislature. Both to protect the Constitution, but also to ensure just enforcement of the law, the independence of the judiciary from the legislature and the executive branch is essential. The judiciary must be the guardians of the Constitution, to ensure that all legislative decisions are coherent with it. This idea championed by Hamilton, that the courts ensured that the Executive and Legislative branches followed the Constitution, was later established as a principle of American jurisprudence by Chief Justice John Marshall.
The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law 1758, Emmerich de Vattel - LONANG Library
Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, L.H. Butterfield - Cambridge, Mass: The Belknap Press, 1961, Vol. 1, p. 235.
Butterfield, Vol. 1, p. 278.
The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, by William B. Willcox - New Haven: Yale University Press, 1959, Vol. 31, pp. 261-65.
John Jay, Letter to Gouverneur Morris, in John Jay: Winning the Peace, 1745-84, by Richard B. Morris - New York: Harper and Row, 1980, Vol II, pp. 108-10.
Benjamin Munn Ziegler, The International Law of John Marshall, Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1939, p. 9.
Letter from William Bradford to James Madison, Oct. 17, 1774, The Papers of James Madison, by William Hutchinson and William Rachal - Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962, Vol. I, p. 126.
Charles William Frederick Dumas was a native of Switzerland, who lived most of his life in The Netherlands. He was one of the most important agents and diplomats working for the American cause in Europe. Dumas corresponded constantly with Franklin, using his edition of The Law of Nations as a cipher for coding his communications. Franklin had to use his copy of The Law of Nations to decipher Dumas' letters.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Robert Skipwith, Aug. 3, 1771, in Writings, op. cit., pp. 740-45.
Alexander Hamilton, Letter to James Duane, in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. by Harold C. Syrett - New York: Columbia University Press, 1961-77, Vol 2, pp. 400-18.
Forrest McDonald, Alexander Hamilton, A Biography - New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1979, p. 97.
Natural born citizen defined, ping.
Placemarker for reading in the AM with my mug of tea. Thanks for posting this, Cal.
Thanks, Calpernia; excellent thread.
Thanks, LucyT for the update
Thanks, Calpernia for the excellent thread.
Thank you both.
Very interesting reading. Must bookmark for later. Have to get ready to go to a family birthday party soon.
Thank you for the post.
Good post. Thanks!
"The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privliges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is an alien."
Blackstone’s work wasn’t used to base the Constitution on. That is pertinent because the Law of Nations provides the definition for the references in the constitution.
Cal, I was literally brought to tears reading the material! How far our Constitutional has slipped fromt he intended. How poorly the citizens comprehend their rights, responsibilities, and sovereignty. The democrat party is the perfect usurper to destroy the Constitutional Republic. And their societal engineering has accomplished through the dumbed down electorate force fed pap in public 'education' precisely what is needed in an absent sovereignty of the citizens, stupidity and complacency to be exploited by the criminal enterprise democrat party. Barack Obama, or whatever his name is legally, is the idea fraud to finalize the destruction. God have mercy upon us, it is time for revolution once again.
· Discover · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo ·
· The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists ·
Wow. Thanks for the ping to this (from another thread). I had no idea...this is all news to me. File this under “Things you don’t learn in high school history class.”
Emmerich de Vattel
The RevWar/Colonial History/General Washington ping list
Freepmail me to get on or off this list
You must be joking.
Blackstone's work was a huge influence on the Constitution, as was Locke's. And it extended back even before the Constitution, despite Blackstone's monarchist views.
And if Dr. Taitz doesn't think that Jefferson was relying on Locke's Second Treatise when he wrote in the Declaration of Independence of the endowment of rights by our Creator, and the importance of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness," then some more research is in order.
Thanks for the ping. Very interesting article Calpernia.
My first sentence of my first paragraph. That was a myth. There are cites throughout backing that up.
This is good, question is has the electoral college decided to adhere to the definitive definition or will they fall for the EASY way out.
What is more pertinent is that English Common Law going back 150 years before the Constitution was established stated that a child born in England was a natural born citizen regardless of the nationality of the parents. And the founding fathers would have known that.
Thanks for the great post.
I see no cites that deny the influence of Locke; I see cites that support the idea that there was more than one influence on the Constitution.
Vattel’s principles of constitutional law were entirely different from the British constitution. American colonists attacked the foundation of the King and Parliament’s power, by demanding that Vattel’s principles of constitutional law be the basis for interpreting the British constitution.
You are right, I edited most of the Locke disputes out because the blog post was turning into a thesis.
The American Revolution was a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. The myth that John Locke was the philosopher behind the American Republic, is easily refuted by examining how Locke’s philosophy steered Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson’s actions make it clear that, had Locke’s philosophy been the inspiration for the American Revolution, the U.S. would never have become the world’s leading nation and industrial power. Jefferson, who claimed that the three greatest men in history were the British empiricists Francis Bacon, John Locke, and Isaac Newton, adopted their outlook that sense certainty is the basis for all knowledge, writing:
I feel, therefore I exist. I feel bodies which are not myself: there are other existences then. I call them matter. I feel them changing place. This gives me motion. Where there is an absence of matter, I call it void, or nothing, or immaterial space. On the basis of sensation, of matter and motion, we may erect the fabric of all the certainties we can have or need.
Having denied that human nature is creative reason, Jefferson saw society and economics as based on fundamentally fixed relationships. Therefore he endorsed Thomas Malthus’ ideology, that man’s needs must exceed his ability to produce. He rejected national economic development through the increase of the productive powers of labor, and instead accepted Adam Smith’s free trade doctrines. Jefferson saw slavery as appropriate for Blacks, whom he considered as inherently inferior.
Jefferson opposed Hamilton’s measures for the development of the nation, and in a private letter stating his opposition to Hamilton’s National Bank, for example, he raved that any person in the state of Virginia, who cooperated with the Bank, “shall be adjudged guilty of high treason and suffer death accordingly.”
Jefferson was fanatically opposed to the development of American industry, and described the growth of cities in America as “a canker which soon eats to the heart of its laws and constitution.” He fought to keep the nation as a feudal plantation.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, Aug. 15, 1820.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Trumbull, Feb 15, 1789, in Thomas Jefferson: Writings - New York: Library of America, 1984, pp. 939-40
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Jean Baptiste Say, Feb. 1, 1804, in Writings, pp. 2243-44.
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to James Madison, Oct. 1, 1792, in The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, ed. by John Catanzariti - Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990, pp. 432-33.
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, in Writings, p. 290.
Leibniz wrote New Essays on Human Understanding as an explicit refutation of Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
OCR’d it for you. Thanks for the post. :)
BOOK 1 CHAPTER 19
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It
§ 212 Citizen and Natives
The citizens are the members 0f the civil society bound to this
society by certain duties. and subject to its authority. they equally
participate in its advantage, The natives, or natural born citizen
are those born in the Country of parents who are citizens. As the
society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the
children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition
of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is
supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own
preservation; and it is presumed as matter of course, that each
citizen on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of
becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that
of the children: and these become true citizens merely by their tacit
consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of
discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the
country in which they were born. I say that in order to be of the
country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is
citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only
the place of his birth, and not his Country.
Bookmarked for later read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.