“Philosophy of Liberty of the Founding Generation” By: John “DrJohn” Sampson
I have been asked give a short presentation on Liberty during this
Appleseed event. I must admit to being somewhat intimidated by the task,
for several reasons. First, it is a very large topic. But since we are
doing it in the context of Appleseed, I take it to mean what was the
philosophy of Liberty of the founding generation. Why did they fight
with such grim determination? What were they fighting for? Another
reason is that each person fought and struggled for his own reasons, so
there were many ‘philosophies’, not just one. But they were all pretty
much complementary. Instead of giving you my own idea of what the
founding generation had in mind, I think it best to describe their
motivations in their own words, letting them speak for themselves. I
will have some commentary on what they spoke and wrote, but as much as I
can, I will do so by putting myself in their place and explaining as I
think they would have done themselves.
One more item of
difficulty is that their philosophy, their world view, so to speak, is
so vastly different from ours. So much so that it is difficult or even
impossible for many people even to imagine such ideas. Let’s explore
them a little bit, the ideas of those men, women, and children who loved
Liberty so much that they were willing to pay almost any price to
attain it.
In the first place, we might wonder what they meant by
‘Liberty’. In the words of one of the most revered of the founding
generation, Samuel Adams, “The natural liberty of man is to be free from
any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or the
legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his
rule.” That’s a pretty revolutionary thing to say. What are your
thoughts on the matter? Thomas Jefferson said “(R)ightful liberty is
unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us
by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the
law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it
violates the right of an individual.” I might add a word about the
meaning of the word “tyrant” or “tyranny”. The founding generation
didn’t use these words as an epithet. Like everything they said, these
words had a particular meaning. They referred to rule that was arbitrary
and capricious, and treated men differently based on whim and
preference, not on objectivity. It was rule based on connections and
power.
I did not say these things myself, although I strongly
support the sentiments. Let’s consider another quote or two from Thomas
Jefferson, a man widely respected as being one of the pivotal
intellectuals of the American Revolution and the principle author of the
Declaration of Independence.
“Sometimes it is said that man
cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be
trusted with the government of others?” That’s pretty radical, don’t you
think? How do you feel about the matter?
Thomas Jefferson also said, “The right of self-government does not comprehend the government of others.”
He
also said, “A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from
injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate
their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from
the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good
government.”
I think you get the drift. No need to belabor the point. The predominant theme of Revolutionary War era America was Liberty.
We
aren’t going to be able to cover the philosophy of the founding
generation in great depth because of time constraints, but let’s hit
another couple of highlights. I would like to quote one of the most
influential documents of its day, the one that seemed to encompass a
great deal of the thinking that shaped their belief system. This is from
the second and most famous paragraph of that document:
“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.---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 abolish it, and to institute new Government,
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in
such form, as to them shall most likely to affect their Safety and
Happiness.”
Can anyone tell me what that is from? Yes, the
Declaration of Independence. Let me make a few obvious comments. The
founders considered some truths so obvious, so impressed on our very
hearts, as it were, that they were ‘self-evident’, that is, that anyone
knew they were true just by examining his own heart. Of course all the
great religions reinforce these beliefs, but even if religions did not
exist, we would still know these things to be true. Among these truisms
is the knowledge that we have certain rights that are un-alienable,
often mispronounced unalienable. That means we cannot split these rights
off from ourselves even if we wanted to. They are as much a part of our
very nature as gray, heavy, and space-occupying are to the nature of
lead. That governments are created by people to secure those rights.
Just to secure our rights to life, freedom of action, and property. The
right to property is essential because if government can deprive us of
our property at will, our rights to life and freedom of action are
meaningless. As one of the founders, George Mason of Virginia, phrased
it, if Parliament can tax us one shilling out of twenty, what security
is there for the other nineteen? And the document refers not to
happiness per se, but the pursuit of happiness. So it was recognized
that each person had the right to live his own life as he saw fit, free
from any meddlesome attempts to make him conform in any way whatever,
except to leave his neighbors in peace.
One more thought on the
wording of the Declaration, the phrase, “government derives its just
powers from consent of the governed”. That implies that there are unjust
powers as well that government exercises. Or in the words of Thomas
Jefferson, speaking of the new Constitution, “Laws which violate the
basic law of the land are null and void and of no force whatever.” The
clergy of the Revolutionary generation well understood this concept and
taught it constantly from the pulpit.
Let me just quote a few
others of the founding generation, to give you a little ‘flavor’ of
their thinking, so you can understand them a bit better and perhaps get a
different perspective on the situation in which we now find ourselves.
Capt. Levi Preston of Danvers had fought during the Battles of Lexington
and Concord. He was interviewed many years later and asked what it was
that made him fight. The old man considered the question a bit. To
prompt a reply, the interviewer asked if it was the Stamp Act, or the
tax on tea, or the writings of the philosopher John Locke. Finally the
old man said, “Young man, what we meant in going for the Redcoats was
this. We had always governed ourselves, and we always meant to. They
didn’t mean that we should.”
One more quote, from a man who wrote
with such conviction, sincerity, and common sense that he rescued the
War for Independence from almost certain loss. The pamphlet appeared in
December of 1776 and was instrumental in boosting the morale of the
Continental army and in winning the battles of Trenton and Princeton and
turning the tide of the war. Let me quote:
“Britain with its
army to enforce her tyranny, has declared she has a right not only to
TAX but “to BIND us in ALL CASES WHATSOEVER” and if being bound in that
manner is not slavery, then there is not such a thing as slavery upon
earth. Even the expression is impious, for so unlimited power can belong
only to God.” Thomas Paine, The Crisis. This referred to the
Declaratory Act passed by Parliament in 1766, at the time the Stamp Act
was repealed. England wanted to alert her American colonies that the
hated tax would be repealed, but that in no way meant that England
forfeited her right to rule the colonies in every way imaginable. To the
colonists, that was merely a euphemism for slavery. Can government rule
us in all cases whatsoever? That is, do we have a moral or ethical
obligation to submit to government without any reservation, even when it
violates our conscience? In other words, do we have a moral obligation
to act immorally? Asked in that way, the question more or less answers
itself. I would like each of you to ponder that for yourselves. Does
government have the right to bind us in all cases whatsoever? Or are
there limits? What are your own thoughts on the matter?
Let me
quote one more of the Founding Generation, Samuel West, a
Congregationalist minister In Massachusetts Bay Colony during the
Revolutionary period. He gave a very influential sermon after the
fighting had broken out, and he eloquently outlined the American
patriots’ high moral ground in opposing British tyranny. Let me
paraphrase a paragraph of his sermon. I admit that I paraphrase his
words quite a bit, but only to make them more understandable to modern
ears. “Thus we see that a state of nature, though it be a state of
perfect freedom, gives men no right to do anything that is immoral, or
contrary to the will of God, and injurious to their fellow-creatures;
for a state of nature is properly a state of law and government, even a
government founded upon the unchangeable Natural Law, and a law
resulting from the eternal fitness of things...A revelation, pretending
to be from God, that contradicts any part of Natural Law, ought
immediately to be rejected as an lie... Had this subject been properly
understood, the world would have remained free from a multitude of
absurd ideas, which have been industriously propagated by artful and
designing men, both in politics and the pulpit. The doctrine of
nonresistance and unlimited passive obedience to the worst of tyrants
could never have gained support among mankind had the voice of reason
been hearkened to for a guide, because such a doctrine would immediately
have been discerned to be contrary to Natural Law and destructive of
human happiness, peace and prosperity.” He goes on to say, “This plainly
shows that the highest state of liberty subjects us to the law of
nature and the government of God.” In other words, men have no moral
obligation whatever to obey any so-called ‘authority’ that acts contrary
to God’s law, or Natural Law, or the Ten Commandments, as they would
have understood the concept. What is your own opinion about that? Ever
given it a thought? It is certainly not the kind of thing you hear in
the popular culture, and to my way of thinking, we are the worse off
because of it.
I have given you a lot to think about. And I
certainly hope it has stimulated your thinking, and that you will read
more. The thoughts, sentiments, and beliefs expressed are those that
motivated a peace loving people to rise up and defeat the most powerful
empire the world had ever seen. Their thinking is so different from the
popular culture of today that it is hard for many people even to
conceive of it. But to my way of thinking, their morality,
responsibility, and determination are far more agreeable to me, and
harmonize with what I feel to be just and true, than any amount of what I
get through the popular culture. I hope it holds some attraction for
you as well.
Let me end this with one more quote from one of my
very favorite founding fathers, Dr. Joseph Warren. He was one of the
principle leaders of the Patriots in Boston at the time of Paul Revere’s
ride, one of the most influential and admired men in Massachusetts Bay
Colony. He was killed at the Battle of Bunker Hill in June, 1775,
fighting off the Redcoats so that as many Patriot militia as possible
could escape and live to fight on. He spoke these words at the
commemoration of the Boston Massacre in 1775:
“Our country is in
danger, but not to be despaired of. Our enemies are numerous and
powerful; but we have many friends, determining to be free, and heaven
and earth will aid the resolution. On you depend the fortunes of
America. You are to decide the important question, on which rest the
happiness and liberty of millions yet unborn. Act worthy of yourselves.”
