Posted on 03/07/2020 7:40:46 AM PST by Kaslin
There is a constant stream of books and articles telling us, often strenuously and at great length, that the American Founders got the ideas they used for the Founding from the British philosopher John Locke. The Founders would be puzzled by this ongoing effort. They knew different.
Locke's Two Treatises of Government appeared in 1690. The articles by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay that became The Federalist began appearing in American newspapers in 1787. Quite a lot had happened during that intervening century. The greatest development of all during that time was the onset of the American Enlightenment, that explosion of human genius that gave America and the world the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and The Federalist. The Founders carried out a revolution in thinking about the meaning and possibilities of human life unlike anything the world had ever known before — and by 1776, they were only getting started. Thomas Jefferson later called The Federalist "the best commentary on the principles of government, which ever was written." He was right about that. The distance in thought between Locke's Two Treatises and The Federalist is simply enormous.
Even the Declaration boldly declares its distance from Locke's thinking, though we are told unceasingly that it is a Lockean document. Those who say the Declaration is Lockean tell us that if we have a question about the Declaration, all we need to do is consult Locke's political philosophy. Okay, then, here's a question about the Declaration: why "unalienable"? It is, after all, a somewhat odd word. It is familiar to us only because it is there in that sentence we all know:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
“Because, you know, the thing”
Really good article, worth reading, makes and clarifies important points to understand and to be able to teach whenever we each defend orthodox Americanism. Thank you, as always, for your valuable posts.
The root word is therefore “lien”, there can be no transfer of property rights away from its rightful owner.
Locke's triad is appended to property. The Declaration's triad is appended to unalienable rights — and property is missing. These are two fundamentally different accounts.
If I recall correctly, the declaration's draft had the word "property", but it was later changed to "the pursuit of Happiness." Supposedly, this was a sensitivity towards slavery. I don't know if that is true or not. But our founders were certainly cognizant of property rights.
The idea of "unalienable" is very interesting and strong. For instance, what does it imply if you cannot be separated from your rights? Doesn't that invoke some sort of responsibility on your part to maintain your rights?
I rarely invoke the Federalist/Anti-Federalist ping list, but this is a fascinating article about the philosophical roots of the Constitution.
Bump Bookmark
TFTP
Bttt.
5.56mm
And it's not just about jobs and economic opportunity. It's about freedom, exercise of "Creator-endowed rights and liberties," and opportunity for each citizen, not just self-appointed elitists who fancy themselves as entitled to make decisions for all.
See this web site, at which Richard Frothingham's outstanding 1872 "History of the Rise of the Republic of the United States" may be read on line.
This 600+-page history traces the ideas which gave birth to the American founding. Throughout, Richard Frothingham, the historian, develops the idea that it is "the Christian idea of man" which allowed the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to become a reality--an idea which recognizes the individual and the Source of his/her "Creator"-endowed life, liberty and law.
Is there any wonder that the enemies of freedom, the so-called "progressives," do not promote such authentic histories of America? Their philosophy puts something called "the state," or "global interests" as being superior to individuals and requires a political elitist group to decide what role individuals are to play.
In other words, they must turn the Founders' ideas upside-down in order to achieve a common mediocrity for individuals and power for themselves.
Thomas Jefferson wrote to Roger Weightman on June 24, 1826:
" I should, indeed, with peculiar delight, have met and exchanged there congratulations personally with the small band, the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made. may it be to the world, what I believe it will be, (to some parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all,) the Signal of arousing men to burst the chains, under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings & security of self-government. That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion. 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. these are grounds of hope for others. for ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them."
More so, it is IMHO a reference to the legal concept of "duress.” Ordinarily, if I make a bad deal - say, I sell my car for half of what it is worth - “the law will not be concerned with the adequacy of compensation.” If I try to sue, I won’t have a judicable case.OTOH if I am under duress - if I have a gun pointed at me and I sign over my car - then I do have a case.
If a right is “unalienable,” I don’t actually own it in the usual understanding of the word, which normally implies I can sell it or give it away. But in English law, and elsewhere, there was/is unalienable property. It’s how the upper class made itself stable - all property went down to the eldest son, from generation to generation. That type of ownership was “in fee tail,” compared with the normal (to us) “ownership in fee simple.”
Property would be inherited in fee tail in the dynasty’s founder’s will - and ever afterward, the eldest male descendant owned the property but if he should become impoverished he was “land poor.” He owned a lot, but he couldn’t afford to eat. That happened fairly commonly in Virginia, and it happened to Thomas Jefferson.
The normal recourse was to go to the legislature and get a rifle-shot law passed allowing a particular individual to sell a particular parcel of land. But Jefferson was in the House of Burgess, and a leader, and he did it differently. He submitted a bill simply declaring that “Holders of property in fee tail shall be holders of property in fee simple.” That was controversial, since the muckety mucks who got to the House of Burgess were the kind of people who thought in terms of their own dynasty. But it also relieved all of said muckety mucks of the risk that they could become land poor. Jefferson succeeded, and “ownership in fee tail” was thereby abolished in Virginia.
So the idea is really more like, “You can deny my rights, but even if you get me to sign them away that will not stand because I don’t have the right to give them up."
That is what I am talking about. Thank you for your insight, you are a scholar.
No, other than the premise that you may you may use your protected inherent rights to do or say any damn thing you wish as long as it harms neither the person nor the property of another.
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.