Posted on 01/05/2006 11:02:41 AM PST by isaiah55version11_0
Nice try, but illogical.
If it's the "European enlightenment", then it's not exclusively Anglo, the postulated premise in this article. Them other guys sure sound French to me. Guess you're now saying it's the Franco Rule?
And sorry, but the American experiment was the first implementation of those concepts in a government. All them other guys just sat around theorizing. Government of the people, by the people, and for the people was a purely American invention.
"the Roman influence of England, in the grand scheme of history, was minimum"
Well, except for that Christianity thing.
I think I'll trust someone called "henry_the_first" when it comes to the history of common law :0)
Property rights and - especially - equality under the law are the air we (in the anglosphere) breathe. These are more primal even than universal suffrage. No English king dared declare himself above the law (English Kings might be untouchable de facto but not de jure) wheras European monarchs, Roman Emperors etc ruled largely without reference to the law all the time. I don't remember, but I think it was in the time of Henry the 1st or 2nd that this change became explicit in English history?
England could easily project its power elsewhere, Germany less so; therein lies the difference.
One could probably make the same comparison between the US and China now.
Minus is correct. What the British refused to do is allow us our own representation, they did not seek to control our every moment and every move. They just wanted legislative power to be located in London, and no where else.
What's intersting to point out is that when Canada started giving Britain trouble, brewing up talk about wanting its only legislature, it was gladly given. It is clear that the Brits learned their lessons from the second British civil war and decided to spread out colonial power instead of keeping it so centralized. If only the same approach was adopted in 1776 (it in fact was one very strongly pushed option by several Lords and Commonsmen), American history would have been very different.
I think that we can say that it is you, Oldbill, and not us, who has clearly been a product of American education. And I'm not even attempting to put that in insult form like you did. Its just a clear reflection of your statement.
That "all men are created equal" is inherent in the very concept of the rule of law. English common law had been developing in this direction for centuries. The American Declaration of Independence was thus a conservative affirmation of longstanding British tradition, not a declaration of novel rights as in the French revolution. Although the concept was first made to "stick" by the success of our revolution and constitution.
The American development of equality was, of course, greatly accelerated by America developing as a "decapitated society." Essentially no aristocrats went to America, and those few who did were unable to get their aristocratic status generally recognized there. Thus America was from its beginning a middle-class society.
With the end of WWII Americans decided it was both. And we're damned good at it when we need to be.
"Government of the people, by the people, and for the people was a purely American invention."
Invented by men raised and educated in the Anglo, European Enlightenment tradition. Did you know that Voltaire and Jeffereson corresponded by letters?
I'm not trying to be rude, just to throw that out. I just think there is a fundamental disagreement on the role of theory in reality.
Without theory, in my opinion, nothing can happen in reality. It was John Locke's theory, among other European enlightenment writers, that influenced Thomas Jefferson.
And the French sounding names? Do you not know your history?
Why is it that we Americans are so ashamed of our Englightenment past/roots? It is always brushed aside, clearly downplayed if even mentioned. Why, is it too European for us rugged American individualists? It was one the greatest ages in history, that saw the two greatest Revolutions (American and French), Frederick the Great, Kant and Adam Smith, among so many other great men and achivements. Why shouldn't we be proud of the roots of our country's great and noble ideals? Why Jefferson is one of the Englightenment Greats! Why must we be ashamed?
I'd argue with that, if I may. The laws of Alfred and Ine predate the Norman Conquest by centuries. Alfred himself codified the usages and customs of English law in the Liber Judicialis.
Granted, the use of these laws was disrupted by the Danish invasions, but you can't really claim that England was occupied by a bunch of lawless barbarians only saved from themselves by the arrival of the Normans! Prior to the Conquest, Anglo-Saxon society was cultured and well-ordered and had been for a long time.
"it was some very simple concepts never before uttered until 1776, that "all men are created equal", that every individual has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, that are the secret of American success."
That is incorrect, the very concept of individual rights is a British, and more specifically, English idea.
The idea that we have rights from God came from a long chain of ideas. The American Revolution had its roots in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which was the culimination of a centuries long struggle between Parliament (legislature) and the Crown (executive) which had it's roots in the Magna Carta in the reign of King John.
"All men are created equal" comes from the English idea that no man, including the King, is above the law and that legislatures make the law.
Indeed the spark for the war was small taxes enacted by the British Parliament at the request of the Govenrment but without consulting the local colonial legislatures.
This article is flawed, particularly where he talks about "unilateralism", but his core argument is right on target.
Well said, excellent rebuttal.
Roman Christianity, as established by the Empire disappeared for over a hundred years. However, in the celtic lands, Christianity still flourished but with out connection to Rome. It was Pope Gregory who sent out Augustine to ensure that England became a Roman-church strong hold, and to push out all Celtic influences, with the purpose of bringing that Church under the rule of Rome as well.
Good article. In-depth read later.
Yes, I know --- synod of whitby and all that.
But it was either: (1) Joseph of Aramathia (according to legend) or (2) Roman traders (most likely) who planted the initial mustard seed.
My post was somewhat tounge-in-cheek, not a reference to the RCC formal structure.
I have to agree with you on the fact that the later Saxons did have a form of Law (why,even Wikipedia says that), but to then point out that Common law, which is the basis of British law even to this day, only emerged in the Norman period. Everything prior (i'm talking about Law here) really did not matter to such great extent, only that some parts of it were assumed into the Norman law code.
Also, I wouldn't say to any degree that England at this time was a civilized place. Yes, Alfred and his son unified the land, but it was still a back water, barbarous place. Edward the Confessor can be seen as a truely civilized king to large extent, but it again must be noted the norman influence upon his court.
Sorry, but I disagree. England was a popular target for invasion because it was prosperous, peaceful and rich.
You said it better than I did!
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.