Few things irritate people more than telling them that the decision is in their hands only to find out that this is not really true. England led the colonists to believe they were self-governing. Today, Americans assume their elected officials are in office to represent the views of their community.
During the English colonization of North America, governing the colonies long distance proved impractical and inefficient. Three thousand miles of Atlantic Ocean and several weeks of time separated the colonial provinces with Mother England.
The point of having the colonies in the first place was to make money for England. This was not an “adventure,” nor would there be a misconception that colonialism served as a government endeavor to give the less fortunate a new lease on life. Nope, a colonial expedition constituted an extremely expensive proposition. Somebody had to put up the money. And as covered in the previous blog, private investors put up cold hard cash in hopes of realizing a profit on their investment. So, the point of allowing the colonists to set up their own rules and governing body had nothing to do with a social experiment - it was an economic necessity. Remote England could not possibly anticipate the needs of the colonists. Trying to govern the daily affairs from overseas would bog the economic wheels down. Consequently, precedent would be that local decisions would be made locally for the sake of efficiency, and more importantly, economic success.
Between 1607 (Jamestown) and 1776 (Declaration of Independence), what developed in the 13 Original Colonies typically resembled this: the Colonial Assembly - the body of locally elected men who would make laws for the good of the colony, the Royal Governor - a trusted emissary of the King who would basically serve as the eyes and ears of the monarch, and the Counsel - typically a handful of men acting as the advisors to the Royal Governor as well as the judicial branch of the colony.
The Colonial Assembly was a natural outgrowth of what discussed above. The orderly working of the colony necessitated laws. Laws which might be functional and necessary for Mother England may have no practicality for the frontier life of a colony. And although the colonies were considered subjects of the British Empire, members of Parliament (often investors in the colonial efforts) realized that for economic success, colonial decisions would have to be made at a local level. Conversely, laws making sense for the needs of colony may prove absolutely nonsensical for people living back in England.
Problem: How does the King and Parliament keep these colonial assemblies from straying from England’s control? Yes, the goal was economic success. But what if the colonists become somewhat renegade in their endeavors - how would England know that colonial laws were consistent with the good of England? Enter, the Royal Governor. Trusted men of the king needed to be present in the colony to review the laws being passed by the Assembly, making sure that these laws ultimately benefitted England. If not, the Royal Governor would refuse to sign the proposed law - thereby having what we now consider the veto. Some Royal Governors were quite popular within their colony. Others were considered little more than spy and snitch who served a powerful impediment in the pursuit of self-governance.
With the appearance of a Royal Governor, to avoid being a "Royal Outsider", the new arrival would need the confidence of local men of wealth, influence, and local knowledge. Hence the need for a Counsel. A wise Royal Governor realized that without the assistance of an inner circle of men who would help him avoid the pitfalls of local “politics” (socially, economically, politically), that Governor could immediately alienate the colonists and he would be a target of hatred instantaneously. True, the Royal Governor represented royalty, had the grandest home in the community, and would throw lavish parties that the colonial gentry aspired to attend. The Governor was the closest thing to being around the King that these colonists would experience. So, yes, there was the natural desire to be in the Governor’s good graces. That notwithstanding, the gentry of the colonies had come by their wealth, social position, and political influence by hard work and sacrifice. They were not about to let some idiot come in and spoil things. Therefore, a prudent Royal Governor realized he must learn the local nuances of the community, and by appointing local advisors of the community, he would benefit from their savvy to know who he could push around, who he couldn’t, who he needed to befriend, and who he needed to undermine.
With bumps and bruises, this type of government worked for the colonies. The measure of success would be economic profit for the investors and more importantly, for England. Remember, the colonies only existed (in the eyes of the Empire) for the sake of earning money for England. If those who chose to risk the hardships of colonial life made money as well - great. If colonists happened to find a better life with more opportunity in America - swell. If some of the colonists enjoyed more religious freedom than what they had on the European continent - okay. For England, any side benefit enjoyed by a colonist was incidental. The bottom line was “Does the existence of the colony benefit England and the investors who plunked down the cash?” If so, everybody wins. If not, make necessary changes or pull the plug.
Human nature being what it is, the colonists believed that local decisions were their right. After all, they were the ones in the trenches taking the actual life and death risks of colonial life (exposure, disease, the potential for hostilities with natives, starvation, etc). It’s one thing to make a bad financial investment and lose. But losing, to a colonist, usually meant dying. By the time colonists were practicing colonialism in the 1700s, the die was cast in terms of them believing that self-governance was a way of life. But did they have any basis for that belief other than habit and precedence? Actually they did.
England, circa 1215, King John agreed to the Magna Carta (aka Great Charter). Bypassing a lengthy discussion, John needed money to finance wars, and when he sought out the financial help of barons (wealthy folks) they provided the money in return for certain written guarantees. The guarantee that we are now interested in, is that of promising these men that taxes would be developed by a group of prominent men they selected; this was the beginnings of representative taxation. The second prominent guarantee for Englishmen came following England’s Glorious Revolution. King James II was chased out of the country and William and Mary took the reigns. Based on England’s monarchs gradually ignoring and eroding the promises of the Magna Carta, new requirements were drafted and documented in the form of the English Bill of Rights, 1689. This document provided several guarantees, primarily preventing the monarch from interfering with a citizen’s right to determine taxes through elected representation (to Parliament), being able to petition one’s government without fear of retribution, having the right to bear arms, enjoying the freedom of speech and debate, the king or queen would not have the right to unilaterally establish new courts nor act as judge, and that laws, made by Parliament, would not be undermined by the sovereign (king or queen). The people of England took these promises as seriously as we do our right to Free Speech. If you were an Englishmen, the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights were your codified guarantee of certain freedoms the sovereign was to respect.
What about American colonists? American colonists considered themselves to be Englishmen (at least, those who came or had ancestral roots to England). As citizens of the British Empire, there was no doubt in their mind that the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights applied to them. Why wouldn’t they? After all, today, if I travel to an American territory, I don’t give up my rights as an American based on lack of proximity to Washington, DC. I may be in the Virgin Islands, but I still retain my rights as an American citizen. When traveling abroad, I need to realize that when in another sovereign nation, they may not grant me rights provided by the US Constitution. But this later example was not the case with America during the 17th and 18th centuries. The English colonies known as “America” were part of the British Empire. An Englishmen choosing to move to America, or born in America, was still considered an English citizen. The rights he enjoyed in the country of England extended to all parts of the British Empire. Therefore, if he had the right to live under laws made in Parliament by officials he helped elect, the same would apply when living in America.
Consequently, the American colonists passionately embraced their right to make their own laws. Although they were not granted the right to have members in Parliament who they elected, they overlooked this oversight due to the fact that they had their own Assembly in their colony, and the laws and taxation which affected their daily life were developed by their local colonial government.
As covered in my previous blog, when England found itself in financial calamity following their victory in the French and Indian War, they decided to directly tax the colonists. After all, they reasoned, the colonies existed for the financial benefit of the Mother Country. The might of the British Army helped protect the colonists, and now, in their time of need, the colonial productivity would be directly taxed to help stabilize the economy of England using an influx of revenue in the form of taxes. Problem: the colonist did not elect members of Parliament, therefore, by the terms of the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, it would be a serious infringement of their rights as an Englishmen to be required to pay taxes to the body which mandated the taxation. It was not the amount being asked for, it was this principle: paying taxes to a body of men they did not elect would be tantamount to giving up their rights as Englishmen. Acquiescing to this abridgment would serve as a dangerous precedent of England expecting American colonists to submit to England whenever asked to do so without regard to their guaranteed rights as equals.
Mother England dug in, and so did the Revolutionaries. The more England asserted its right to rule over America and receive loyalty irrespective of ignoring the rights of Englishmen living there, the more colonial men of principle resisted, insisting of equality and adherence to the law of the land (i.e. the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights). Both sides refused to back down with the result being hostilities which led to the Revolution.
What does this have with America in 2009? After all, laws affecting Americans are enacted by men and women who have been elected to office. Right? Agreed. However, things are going askew. Why?
Members of Congress and Presidents do not become immune to the will of the People once elected. True, the fact that they have been elected provides them with permission to act within the understanding of a democratic republic, that once elected, they have the power to govern. However, once elected, elected officials are not to become removed from listening to the voice and will of the People. During the consideration of the Stimulus Plan, Cap and Trade, and now, the National Health Care bills, there has been a firestorm of concern by large segments of the American population.
In the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson wrote, and our Founders concurred (based on their experience with England):
“...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Notice, the government exists to serve the will of the People. The amount of power, the form of the government, the principles of the government - all these are based upon what best serves the need of the People. The government only gets its power based on the consent, or permission, from the People. What will bring about our Safety and Happiness? That is our desire.
How then can it be consistent, that once elected, members of Congress and/or the President act as if they are immune to the concerns of the People? Do any of the following sound like actions of being responsive to the the concerns of the People:
- Senators and Representatives canceling town hall meetings because they don’t want to face conflicting opinions and the anger of the People?
- Senators and Representatives changing the format of town hall meetings to phone call-ins that dictate prescribed and prearranged questions the conversation is limited to?
- A Speaker of the House referring to Tea Parties, town hall meetings flooded with angry Americans, and talk shows being dominated with the topic of the direction our country is taking as “Astroturf Movements”? (Meaning, the concern is phony and directed by trouble makers such as Glen Beck, Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larsen, Michael Savage, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, and more.)
- A President who asks that neighbors submit, to the White House, the names and addresses of people, like myself, who express concern and dissent over the present direction our country is taking?
- A President who repeatedly tries to silence dissent by saying that their concerns are based on misinformation, and then refuses to address the concerns directly?
- A President who seeks methods and authority for shutting down the internet based on his whims and capriciousness, ostensibly for the sake of national security?
- Passing laws which exceed 1000 pages in length, often written by special interest groups or czars who were not elected by the People, often not read and debated by the legislators passing them, and then ridiculing the concern that the People want the elected legislator (not their staffers) to fully read and understand the proposed law, and fully address the concerns of their constituents before voting?
We are rapidly moving from the economic and political structure that determined America. Our government is making decisions which move away from capitalism and into fascism (government control over private industry while maintaining private ownership, at least in name, while suppressing opposition to the government) and/or socialism (government control over industry without regard, concern or respect of private enterprise, and again, while suppressing voices of dissent). The pace at which Congress and the President are passing social reform is more than alarming. Our government is passing these changes at a rate which doesn’t allow us to experience the real consequences of their actions until the damage is done. The numbers being projected are so astronomical, it’s virtually impossible to get your mind around what the changes mean to the individual, his children, and his grandchildren.
The Declaration of Independence goes on to say... “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
What does this mean? A government that has been successful for a long time shouldn’t be changed without serious need for change; after, it became successful for a reason. Further, human nature is such that we don’t really want to change; we’ll put up with bad government as long as we can stand it. We’re used to things the way they are. But when government shows a pattern of abusing their power and taking away the rights of the People (usurpation) with a goal of putting the People under absolute control, it becomes the right and duty to replace the abusive government in order to protect their future.
Our heritage is based upon a government which is responsive to the will of the People. The government exists for the protection of our rights, happiness, and security. It’s about us, it’s not about them. The government serves the People.
A regular lament among Americans is that we don't have time. Don't have time to find out what's really going on, don't have time to research it, don't have time check the facts, etc. However, we each have 24 hours. Your bank account may have more or less money than mine, but our time account is the same. Following the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a colonial woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government he was giving the people. His response? A Republic, madam, if you can keep it. What did Franklin mean? In order for a republic to work, the public needs to be educated and part of the process. Otherwise, human nature will run its course and absolute power will corrupt absolutely.
When the government tells the People to shut up, something is dramatically wrong!
intriguing
ReplyDeletenice...they changed the tax rule
ReplyDelete