The rights of an Englishman; the subsequent assumptions of Americans

What follows is the second chapter of the book I'm working on - unedited (please forgive my errors).

The English colonists, like all humans, made certain assumptions. Concerning nationality, they assumed they were Englishmen. As a citizen of the United States, you assume you are an American. In the event our country sent you to live in a land declared to be American soil, you’d still consider yourself to be an American. Elemental.

Since the time of the Magna Carta (1215 A.D.), the rights of an Englishmen grew steadily. Initially these rights applied to lords who bailed out King John’s need for money. In exchange for their financial support, the lords of various vassals demanded codified rights. Included in their list were considerations such as the right to a trial by their peers, the expectation that there must be reliable witnesses if accused of a crime, the right to face their accuser, that property may not be taken from a person without equitable payment, and that fines imposed must be reasonable. In time, increasing numbers of Englishmen came to enjoy these rights.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688 wherein King James II was ousted by William of Orange set the stage in 1689 for the English Bill of Rights. Among these rights, Englishmen were insured their right to speak freely without fear of retribution from the government, Protestants were allowed to bear arms, Parliament could not be dismissed by the king, and petitioning the government for a redress of government would be allowable. Again, over time, more and more citizens of England claimed these rights as their own. Importantly, when an Englishman emigrated to the English colonies, since he was still, technically on English soil, he did not forfeit his rights by leaving England.

Between the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights, both documents addressed the raising of money by the government: taxation. Rather than taxes being arbitrarily determined by the monarch, they were to be determined by a group of prominent men who were selected from among the people. Prominent men became Parliament, and Parliament became the representative body which was selected from among the citizens.

Due to the distances between England and her colonies, it was considered impractical to directly rule from overseas. Thus, colonies were allowed to form local governments to take care of local business. As the colonists were no longer directly impacted by the day to day legislation of Parliament, it seemed inappropriate to have colonists participate in parliamentary matters back in England. Therefore, allowing distant colonies representation in Parliament appeared to be a moot point. On the other hand, government was necessary on a local colonial level. Passing needs and decisions across the Atlantic with a minimum of 12 weeks passage plus consideration of requests proved inefficient. Additionally, it quickly became apparent that those back in Mother England had limited understanding of the harsh realities faced by colonists. Practicality proved that a local government could best address local needs.

Still, the colonists prided themselves in being Englishmen - bearers of the same rights of those enjoyed in England. The values impressed by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights were considered just as important in the New World as the Old. Colonists expected the right to a trial by their peers, that property could not be removed without due compensation, seeking a redress of grievances from government was allowable, representative lawmakers could not be dismissed by a higher authority, and money to be raised through taxation was to be determined by men who the colonists selected.

Colonial government differed somewhat from one colony to another, but most followed a model of a colonial assembly, a royal governor, and a council. The colonial assembly was determined by eligible voters in the colony - primarily white, landowning men. The royal governor was typically selected by the monarch of England and served as a direct representative of the king. The council was typically selected by the royal governor.

The role of the assembly was to make necessary legislation - including taxation for the needs of the colony. Again, the assembly members were selected by eligible voters. A bill being considered for law moved from the assembly to the council, which served as the upper house. Once approved, the bill slated for law was reviewed by the royal governor who could sign or veto it. Unlike today’s Senate, members of the council were not chosen by the colonists. Additionally, the council served as the high court, as well as advisors to the royal governor. While this system was fraught with snagging points, it served the colonial needs for government, largely for two reasons: 1) laws and taxation were initiated by representative colonists who had been selected by eligible voters, and 2) the colonists insisted on their right to pay the salaries of members of the council and the royal governor from their purses - thereby exercising some level of control over the actions of an otherwise detached group.

Most importantly, English colonists believed that their rights as Englishmen were intact. Despite the sting of not being included in Parliamentary participation, the reason for exclusion seemed to make some sense. And, with the allowance of implementing their rights in local government affairs which directly affected their daily existence, the colonists did not object - yet.

Jumping ahead, when America gained its independence, a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. These rights included many of the historical rights promoted by the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, but also included particulars the Framers and Founders wanted codified as a result of their experience in being bullied by a tyrannical government. For instance, the First Amendment includes the right to seek a redress of grievances from one’s government; that definitely has its roots in both the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights, as does freedom of speech and a jury trial. On the other hand, the Third Amendment is specific in preventing the government to require citizens to house soldiers in a time of peace, or during war unless legislated by Congress; this comes from their history with England’s occupation of the colonies.

In any event, like our colonial forefathers, we assume the rights of Americans apply to us today. (Unfortunately, I wonder how many of the ten most Americans could paraphrase.) We well know that we’re supposed to be allowed to speak freely, worship as we please, assemble with like minded people, contact our representative government and speak our minds, maintain a weapon, not have the government bust into our homes without warrant, have access to a trial of our peers, and...? Well, we know there are more - whatever they say. Most people are acutely aware of their right to freedom of speech, and due to the constant debates over gun ownership, are mindful of the Second Amendment.

To most Americans, the Bill of Rights seems to be of more importance than the Articles of the Constitution - probably the Bill of Rights covers guarantees to the people. The Articles provide the blueprint for government. Because they are somewhat tedious, we don’t pay much attention. And because we don’t pay much attention, the animals are maintaining the zoo.

Legend has it, that upon emerging from the Constitutional Convention in 1787, a woman approached Benjamin Franklin and queried, “What form of government have you given us, Dr. Franklin?” The wise, old Franklin responded, “A republic, madam, if you can keep it.” A republic is that form of government wherein people select representatives from their number who are given an appropriate amount of power to conduct the business of government. It is up to the people to select wisely and then hold the government accountable. If they don’t, our Constitution provides checks and balances to correct the abuse, but you won’t find the instructions for this in the Bill of Rights.

We can assume that the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights are mainstays of our country. But if we only have a vague understanding of the Rights, and next to nothing about the Articles, how can we hope to control the animals running the zoo?

In 1887, Lord Acton, a member of Parliament wrote a letter in which he penned the famous line “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Today’s members of government have the “run of the house,” so to speak. They bank on the masses not paying attention nor understanding the workings of government. Tragically, many of our elected officials are ignorant of the contents of the Constitution. Others hide behind obscure legal maneuvers to enable their actions. Still others brazenly thwart the system, Constitution be damned.

The rights of Americans are under attack. The tactics are sneaky, often tucked deeply into voluminous bills written by lobbyists and not read, nor understood by those we elected. The directive of the Declaration of Independence to form a government which protects the rights of the people has long been forgotten. And we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Upcoming Book: Part 1

Another book? Yep. Title? I don't know yet. Target audience? Concerned adults who need reminder and encouragement from America's roots in addressing today's broken government.

Many of us feel the need to get back to our roots. Those roots may be a vague understanding in our memory. We are sickened that today's children are not really learning America's legacy.

My upcoming book will attempt to draw parallels between our country's beginnings to today's experience. The Revolutionary experiences are strikingly similar to the occurrences of our current events.

Intuitively, most educated Americans are aware that the past speaks to today's news. However, we may not know how to focus our past on contemporary issues. My upcoming book will seek to bridge that gap.

Over the course of my next several entries, I'll share portions of the book as it develops. I hope you enjoy it! Jim

The Essence of the Declaration of Independence

Once upon a time, most school children could tell you the significance of the July 4, 1776. Not now. A query today would almost assuredly elicit the response, “Fireworks!” If you persisted with a followup question as to why, you’d get a blank stare, or perhaps “To blow things up.”

On April 19, 1775 the “Shot Heard ‘Round the World” reported. It marked the beginning of the Revolutionary War, or the War for Independence as it was known then. Despite the misconception that the American colonists stood united in this cause, people were widely divided in their opinions of a response to British oppression as well as appropriate response. Nonetheless, war had begun.

On May 10, 1775, delegates from the respective colonies were to meet in Philadelphia to strategize next steps. Debates were lengthy. The famous Olive Branch Petition seeking reconciliation was ignored as King George III and the Parliament got word of British troops being pushed back into Boston. Finally, on July 4, 1776, a letter had been approved which would be sent to England as explanation and justification for future actions: the Declaration of Independence.

The delegates felt the need to explain themselves. The letter announced the colonies would dissolve ties with England. From there, the cornerstone argument presented is that of basic beliefs, the subsequent need of government to protect the rights of the citizens, a recognition of the need for government and how that government is to be accountable to the people, the justification for change demanded by the people including the right to abolish the government, a listing of grievances suffered by the colonists under British rule, and a pledge by the signers to adhere to the pledge of the letter, unto separation of property, reputation and life.

Let us first examine the state of basic beliefs.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The signers of the Declaration felt that the beliefs they held dear were based on obvious truth: there is equality among men, God had given men specific rights which could not be removed, and to serve as example, the protection of one’s life, the right to be free, and the right to pursue endeavors which fulfilled a human - these were sacred. The key to this belief hinges on the origin of the rights, i.e. they come from God as a gift. As a God-given gift, the possession of these rights is above the dominion of other humans. That is, my right to life is sacred; you and your buddies cannot, by this set of foundational beliefs, remove it from me.

Based on this cornerstone belief concerning rights, action must be taken to protect the rights of all people:

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

The Founders created our country on the Foundation that 1) our Rights come from God and therefore cannot be taken away, and 2) the reason for establishing a government is to protect our God-given rights. (All officials in government, and all candidates running for public office should know this basic truth. The reason for the existence of a government, according to the Declaration, is to protect the God-given rights of the people.)

Now, I must ask a fundamental question: What if we become a nation that no longer believes in God - or even, that notwithstanding the existence of God, our rights come from another source. In that event, the Declaration’s basic premise is undermined. According to the Declaration, the existence of rights would be up for debate. For if the rights do not come from God, do they then come from the government? If the government, then what the government gives, the government can take away. Do they come from nature? Within the animal kingdom, species will kill their own, frequently - victory goes to the fittest. Shall we live by the rules of animals? If so, our code of conduct and our very safety is at stake, subject to the whims and capriciousness of others. Let’s move on.

— 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.

Should a government lose sight of its purpose and begins to destroy our rights, it is your right to change or get rid of it. Did the government give you that right? No! It is basic to your natural God-given rights. If not, then the Founders would not have called this action a right. For the action of changing or abolishing the government supersedes the very prominence of the government itself. The chain of command established is God, then people, then government. Further...

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.

Our Forefathers wisely recognized the value of a long-standing government and urged us not to foolishly attempt change it for trendy or temporal reasons. A government which had stood the test of time must have done so by successfully protecting its citizens. However, the Founders also understood that human nature tends towards inaction if the people can tolerate bad government. Reasons are not offered for failure to correct the bad government, so we must search ourselves as to why. Are we too busy? Perhaps we see the effort as insurmountable. Maybe we are not interested in politics. Have we grown “fat” and lazy? Now listen to this...

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism...

Abuse is fairly obvious. Usurpation means taking power that does not belong to me. So when our government becomes abusive of our God-given rights, and begins taking our power away from us, without our consent, and the goal becomes clear that the government is attempting to put the people under a form of total control... then what?

... it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Notice, the right to change or eliminate the bad government is not a privilege - it is a right. Again, if the people have a right which trumps the very existence of their government, the right would, by the Founders’ definition, be a God-given right. At this point, the signers of the Declaration up the ante, so to speak. They pronounce that taking action against a government run amok is more than a God-given right; it is the duty of the people to take action - making change when possible, but abolishing the government if necessary for the welfare and protection of the people. If you believe your country, its people, yourselves, and your children are in danger, this Declaration does not give you the privilege, it is more than even the right... it is your DUTY to provide new Guards for your future security.

Our country was established on the premise that the people are above, and must control a government which fails to protect the God-given rights of the people. Once the people fail to remain vigilant, and expect the government to run itself, the people are in grave danger of tyranny. Active participation by the citizenry is not only expected, it is demanded. Further, having a clear picture of the basic beliefs of our Founders is paramount to maintaining the legacy they created and bequeathed.