Freedom’s Week

04 Friday Jul 2014

Tags

American Revolution, Continental Congress, Declaration of Independence, English Civil war, Philadelphia

The first week of July, should be celebrated by us all, for this week, above all others has made our world, under the leadership of the English speaking people, free.

Don’t think so? Let’s look at it.

1 July is Canada Day. The Canadians aren’t nearly as noisy as the rest of us, granted, but they may have done more, per capita for freedom than any of us. Not for nothing did General Eisenhower, himself, say that the best troops under his command were the Canadians.

2 July has two events.

In 1776 the Continental Congress adopted Richard Henry Lee’s (Virginia) motion that “These colonies are, and ought to be, free and independant States.” We’ll speak more of this later.

The major event of 2 July was 132 years before that day in Philadelphia was the Battle of Marston Moor, where the English Civil War turned irretrievably toward Parliament’s victory, thereby assuring that the end of extra-legal rule by the King.

And of course, 238 years ago today, the Continental Congress signed Mr. Jefferson’s Declaration that starts

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Marston Moor and the Declaration are in exact alignment with each other. This was really not much more than the English Civil War moved to the New World. The causes were the same (arbitrary government) and even the names were the same. Many, many colonists had returned to England to fight with their families in the Civil War.

Other dates can be added of course, the signing of Magna Charta, Henry VIII’s break with Rome, the Glorious Revolution of 1688, even the ancient memory of King Alfred the Great’s Charter, but what they add up to is the separation of the English speaking people from the authoritarianism of Europe. And the supremacy of the people in in Parliament (or Congress) assembled.

All through our history we have fought against tyranny, and for the Rule of Law. What do we mean by that? We mean, and we have always meant, the objective rule of law, not men.

But we need to be careful, we have done well over the last thousand years but, we will never win this war, no matter how many battles we win. There are always men who would rule as absolute monarchs, and they often repackage their tyranny in what looks like new and shiny packages. So it is now.

Philip Hamburger is the Maurce and Hilda Friedman Professor of Law at Columbia Law School. He is a distinguished scholar of legal history and the author, most recently, of Is Administrative Law Unlawful?

But what is administrative law, and why are you talking about it now? It’s a quite simple answer, and I’ll let Professor Hamburger tell you.

[…]Administrative law is commonly defended as a new sort of power–a modern power that developed mostly in the twentieth century to deal with the complexity of modern society. And, at first glance, there is some truth to this story.

The federal government began to exercise administrative power only in the late nineteenth century and gradually made it a central mode of governance during the twentieth century. For example, it expanded administrative regulation in the 1930s and again in the era since the 1970s. Administrative law thus seems to enjoy legitimacy as a modern response to modern society.

Sociologically, the message is one of modernity and necessity–that administrative law is a novel type of power, which is needed to handle the complexity of an advancing society. It thus is anti-modern and Quixotic to resist this power.

Constitutionally, the message is that administrative law developed after the adoption of the Constitution. Administrative power thus (allegedly) could not have been anticipated by the Constitution. From this perspective, although this sort of power is not constitutionally authorized, neither is it constitutionally barred. It therefore (supposedly) can be lawful as a necessary and modern addition.

Such is the conventional history of administrative law. And it is a reassuring story, if you believe it.

~~~~~~~~~

In reality, administrative power has a much older and darker history. Far from a novel and modern response to modernity, it revives what used to be called prerogative or absolute power. Put more concretely, it revives extralegal power. It thus is exactly what constitutional law developed in order to prohibit.[…*]

And so we see that administrative law is nothing but the return of feudalism in all its capriciousness. Seems to me that those 56 mostly young men in Philadelphia back in 1776, very few of whom prospered and many of whom died penniless, had something to say about how we remain free.

Oh yes, this was it.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Emphasis mine

Why would we assume it will be any easier for us?

Do we still believe: “It is better to die on our feet than to live on our knees“? Or maybe we don’t…

Nor should we forget that the landmark study in economics, “The Wealth of Nations” was published by that canny Scot Adam Smith in 1776 as well, and thus was provided for the incredible gain in living standards of the last 200 years.

Something else we have in common: This. Best known from Rorke’s Drift, it was also heard at the 1st of Ia Drang, and at the World Trade Center on 9-11-01

* IS ADMINISTRATIVE LAW UNLAWFUL? A WORD FROM THE AUTHOR

A City Upon a Hill

23 Sunday Mar 2014

Posted by Neo in Church/State, Politics

≈ 16 Comments

Tags

American Revolution, British Empire, Edmund Burke, England, English Civil war, English Reformation, Henry, United States

Too often I find myself frustrated with young men (and it does seem to be mostly men), it often seems that they have no idea of things that have gone before. It also strikes me that they are much too given to teleological argument in history. Especially since the history of English (and American) resistance has been almost invariably a desire to go back to “the good old law”. Eventually, I cool off and remember how smart my dad got when I went to college, and even more so, work. But, I have long since decided that I tell the truth as I see it, if you don’t want it with the bark on, don’t deal with me.

This will go somewhat off topic, although it is as applicable to our faith as it is anything else, so if you’re reading it, it was because Jessica in her kind heart approved the digression.

In comments the other day Pancakes denigrated American exceptionalism with the catch phrases we always hear, and as always, it set me off, so let look at it a bit.

Firstly, American Exceptionalism is a bit of a misnomer, in reality it is transplanted British Exceptionalism. As Alexis de Tocqueville told us: “The American is the Englishman left to himself.” But in addition to that, the whole theory runs in a nearly straight line from King Alfred the Great through that meadow at Runnymede, through Henry VIII, through the first British Civil war and the Glorious Revolution, and didn’t split until what many call the Second British Civil War (that’s what is popularly called The American Revolution). That why I often say that American history started in 1776, until then it was just a facet of British history. In truth, hopes of a reconciliation didn’t die until the Hessian mercenaries landed, it never pays to use foreign troops in an internal Anglo-American dispute. And as Edmund Burke said on 22 March 1775

First, the people of the colonies are descendants of Englishmen. England, Sir, is a nation, which still I hope respects, and formerly adored, her freedom. The colonists emigrated from you when this part of your character was most predominant; and they took this bias and direction the moment they parted from your hands. They are therefore not only devoted to liberty, but to liberty according to English ideas, and on English principles.

He was right. We should probably note that in the English Civil War many (especially New Englanders) went back to England to take up arms with their families. And for Parliament, most of the New England colonists were from what has come to be called the Eastern Association. And there have always been rumors a couple of the regicides were sheltered for the rest of their life in New England. Virginia was mostly settled by low church Anglicans, who also supported Parliament. In the Revolution, we see the same split, both in America and in England as well. This may well be the only time when Edmund Burke, William Pitt the Elder and Charles James Fox found themselves on the same side of anything, and it was the American side, opposed to the North Ministry. George the Third referred to it for the rest of his life as “my Presbyterian War”.

As a bit of aside, Geoffrey wondered last week why we conflate political terms into church politics, and this may well be the answer, we’ve been doing it since the English Civil war, maybe since Magna Charta, and maybe even longer.

The American Revolution pitted the same sides against each other as the Civil War had, even many of the same families.

Did you notice that I called Henry VIII a major waypoint in American history? I did that for a reason. Henry is amongst other things the man who turned England’s face away from Europe out into the world. This is the major effect of the English Reformation. When England has thought itself to be an adjunct of Europe, it has always demeaned itself, during the Norman occupation, during the Angevin Empire, and now as well. England (in the classical sense meaning Great Britain, actually) has at almost all other times, during the Anglo-Saxon age when England came close to establishing a Nordic confederacy before “1066 and all that”, and after the Reformation, when the Royal Navy, which Henry VIII established, came to rule the waves, everywhere, only giving up that rule for parity with the United States in 1921. The British Empire, especially the first empire is quite simply, a Tudor enterprise

I also think that the Protestant faith(s) themselves have contributed greatly to the spread of English values, with the emphasis on vocation and hard (and superb) work in any sphere being very pleasing to the Lord, especially as compared to the ascetic tradition of Catholicism.

I think it probably important to note that the industrialization of the United states was heavily underwritten by British firms and banks. Why? I’d say most likely because here, like there, the rule of law prevailed, even above the government. Their money, if their investment was wise, was safe. Some tin pot dictator was not going to steal it.

Daniel Hannan, in his latest book, speaks of that day in August of 1941 when Roosevelt walked (really he did) across the gangplank from USS Augusta to HMS Prince of Wales for Church parade, as the band of the Prince of Wales struck up the Stars and Stripes Forever. Churchill later exulted, and correctly, “The Same Language, The Same Hymns, the Same Ideals. The lesson for the day came from Joshua 1:

As I was with Moses, so I will be with you

I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee

Be strong and of good courage

I can’t remember for sure but I am quite sure that the final hymn that day was this:

After all the former First Sea Lord and the former Assistant Secretary of the Navy would have known that it is the official hymn of both navies. They also both knew on that foreboding Sunday morning that freedom had become a fugitive in the night, she existed almost no place where English was not spoken. From Brest through the Japanese home Islands, from the North Pole to Africa all was either communist, nazi, fascist or some other variant of totalitarianism. Freedom in the world is a gift from the English Speaking peoples, and none other, purchased at a very high price, in both blood and treasure.

On that day, and on many others they pledged themselves, and us to make the world safe for

Government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

And no, I didn’t quote Lincoln here, he borrowed the quote himself. It was originally written in 1384 by John Wycliffe. Such a phrase in the 14th century could not have been written in anything but English.