Constitution 101 | Lecture 2

[Music] hi I'm dr. Thomas West Hillsdale College teaching the politics department I'm a professor of politics and my talk today is going to be on natural rights in the American Revolution and the topic is a good one because it indicates two things one is a theory a theoretical concept natural rights and the other is a historical event rooted in a time and place the American Revolution so in order to understand our founding it's important I think to grasp the connection between theory and practice between the ideas that motivated or that helped the founders to structure their activities and actions against Britain at the same time to understand what the practical fight was all about with the British that led to American independence in the period leading up to the revolution and independence in 1776 people in the colonies had been pretty much left alone by the British with some exceptions there was a long period in which there was a kind of uneasy truce you might say between the colonial legislature is elected by the colonists and the royal governor sent over from the king and from Britain and there was there was a rivalry there the colonial legislatures tended to get their way much to the chagrin often of the British officials but and that was an arrangement that lasted for quite a while but then there was the French and Indian War which changed everything that war concluded in 1763 with Treaty of peace that then led both sides both the British and the Americans to think very differently about their relationship with each other from the British side they became increasingly impatient with the colonists now that there was no longer the French threat on the northern border to worry about they needed the colonists to fight the French which had been a theme throughout the 18th century but now French were defeated they're gone as a serious power in North America and it's up to venit became the British the British Empire but that meant that they didn't the British government didn't have to treat the colonists so politely and they also pointed out you the colonists we've been defending you all this time and you haven't been paying taxes or at least not very many taxes so we're going to do something about that I'm going to start taxing you and we're also gonna start making it clear to you that you're part of the Empire and you have to obey us on the colonial side of course Americans attitude was now that the French threat is gone we don't need the British as much so all that time when the British were saying you know you need us and I didn't need the colonists didn't need the British forces to with respect to the French now it was what's let's go off on her own and least or at least let's not be pressed and pushed around by the British there was not an immediate desire for independence in 1763 but the attitude of the Americans was let's not let the British push us around anymore let's stick to our own way of doing things and stand make the British acknowledge that that led to the crisis that started in the 1760s 70s leading up to the actual declaration of independence in 1776 what the colonists were doing throughout this period is not just reacting in a visceral way to their desire to be free but they also had at their pant at hand ready at hand a doctrine of natural rights and natural law which had been around the colonies for quite a while these ideas had come into the colonies sometime around 1710 or shortly thereafter became widely known and discussed in the colonies throughout that period between 1710 and the end of the French and Indian War 50 years later and the Americans therefore were able to say look it's not just a matter of our not deserve our wish to not be dominated by you people you British it's also we have a right to be free we have a right to self-government and the British of course in response said no you don't you're part of the Empire you have to obey the Parliament and that's the store that's the end of it we might compromise me I'd let you have a little freedom but that was the gist of what happened so what the appeal to the natural rights doctrine which began in earnest in the 1760s was was an appeal to a doctrine that is claim that claims to be universally true for all human beings everywhere and that's what gave the revolution its peculiar flavor of not just being a local quarrel between this and that group but a quarrel that was made in the name of the universal principles of natural law and natural rights of something that is true now and forever and will always be true about human relationships that teaching of the of the natural law is stated all over the place in founding era documents you could find in the Declaration of Independence most famously you see it in state after state each gate states that put together constitutions most of them had Bills of Rights had statements of principle these doctrines were widely held you hear occasionally some people will say well that was just Jefferson's idea and he was influenced by the French that's ridiculous that these ideas had been around the colonies for 60 years by that time and widely accepted and known and became officially part of the record in that in the revolution and what you find in these state constitutions is various restatements of the same ideas that are in the Declaration of Independence and they help to clarify so in the Declaration you have all men are created equal and that has led lots of people to make all kinds of assumptions about men and women about blacks and whites about and so on it's about it's not about human equality in the sense of we're all the same it's about human equality in the sense of no one has the right to dominate anybody else without their consent the founders had a way of they different formulations of this for example Virginia all men are by nature equally free and independent or Massachusetts all men are born free and equal these were different versions of the same thought that no one has the right to rule another that there is a and then that was also put in moral language in terms of Rights and natural law so the right the natural right idea arises from the notion that not only are we born equal in the sense nobody's ruling we also have a right a moral claim that we can make on behalf of that state of we do bar we do deserve to be equal in free and equally free and from that then comes the idea of a natural right to Liberty from which in the founders minds all the other rights in it in one way or another can be derived once you're if you have a right to be free not to be ruled by another means that means a right not to be assaulted not to be killed by another that's the right to life if you have the right to be free to use your own mind and your own body to acquire property that means you have a right to quiet to property if you have a right not to be dominated in the way you worship God that's a religious freedom right the basic idea is all men are born free in the sense that everybody who is part of a government ought to have given that person is here her consent to be part of that government equality then can be understood to be a moral claim in two ways one is it's about the moral rights and obligations of human beings to each other and as I said just now their basic right right to Liberty and all the other rights that follow from it and the other is a claim about the rights rule who has the right to rule born equally free and independent means not born into a slave relationship or subordinate relationship understand of course when they talked about this they didn't mean children they always understood children are under the temporary control or wardship of their parents but that was always understood to be a warship that was a preparation for freedom once the children grow up there was no idea of patriarchy throughout life in the founders conception once you've reached the age of majority let's say 21 typically in American law at that time you're free free of your parents and from then on you are free you are free of everything unless it's the laws that you've given your consent to obey and it's that consent it's that giving of consent collectively that is what creates a nation creates a people that is then to be governed by a particular form of government founders use the term social compact to mean the agreement we all make with each other fellow citizens make with each other to form a government and to accept the rules made by that government and once you're in the social compact you then become an exclusive body apart from the rest of humanity and they the government you're creating is for you you your fellow citizens and protection of you and your rights it's only for the prytt not for the protection of the rest of mankind and their rights so what does it mean to be free and equal in a daily day-to-day situation I like to use the example of a job when you apply for a job you are saying to the employer I have something valuable to offer you my labor and if you offer me something valuable let's say pay a salary we'll make an agreement and the agreement is an agreement between equals I agree to be ruled by you insofar as I'm employed by you you agree to pay me and it's a relationship of subordination it's not a relationship with permanent subordination that would be slavery it's an employment contract always has limits beyond which the employer is not allowed to go in order to protect the life liberty and property of the employee but that's one example a simple example of how equality works in practical life and day to day life now the idea of consent of the governed is fundamental to the founding and in fact the Revolution itself was primarily fought in the name of consent because it was the the issue was can British imposed taxes upon our people without the consent of our own locally elected legislative bodies the answer was no they can't and that has to be at contacts as in any form of government intrusion on our life liberty or property has to be with the agreement of the people who live under that government and that has to be expressed through elected legislatures or through democracy where people get together in person as saying in New York New England Township now that consent what did that actually mean in practice in terms of structure and government do we want to have a legislative body is it a good idea to have an executive what about judging what about courts all of that had to be worked out and thrashed out and that was an area where a lot of the disagreements in the founding came forward it was a general agreement on consent in the form of elections general agreement that government needed to have some kind of an executive for prosecutions for directing the Armed Forces for dealing with sudden problems like an uprising you know organizing the militia but basically there was agreement the disagreements in terms of structure of government I'm not going to go into today that's going to be the topic of the next couple of talks in this series what I'm going to focus on today is the subject of what government is supposed to do once it's conformed the Declaration of Independence has a nice formulation to secure these rights governments are instituted among men to secure these rights what does that mean what does security of Rights mean you can also look at the state constitutions and say how did they describe the purpose of government was it the same was it security of Rights and the answer is well they used sometimes they often they use different language one of the terms that was often used as the to explain the purpose of government is the word protection protection is what the government is supposed to do meaning protection against harm to your own life liberty and property and that protection is to vest two sides it's the side of the national government against against the outsiders potential foreign attack and protection against your fellow citizens who might harm you in the in arm your life labor to your property because of their because they're misbehaving so protection there's a let me just give you an example from the Virginia Declaration of Rights government ought to be instituted for the common benefit protection and security of the people nation or community so that's what to secure these rights means protection benefit of protection and security of the peak of the people nation or community again the emphasis is not on is on it's on our people the government is not protecting people in Mexico or Canada or elsewhere in the world that's a subject that is often misunderstood today there's an assumption today that if there's human rights are universal it's the job of every government in the world to protect got rights all over the world the founders rejected that idea completely and totally another example from the New Jersey Constitution preamble the King of Great Britain has refused protection to the good people of these colonies therefore we have a right to revolution refused protection that was the one word you're not protecting us against injury and in fact as New Jersey went on to say is you're attacking us you're harming us you're harming our people you're putting soldiers here and shooting at us so then the question becomes alright what policies the government have to adopt in order to do this protecting of the people so the OP first point of course is protecting the fur outs ejectment projection against outsiders my means of armed forces by means of what we call foreign policy diplomacy statecraft negotiation perhaps making alliances but in the end it comes down to do you have sold in the field who can physically defeat a potential or an actual threat to the life liberty and property of American citizens so this first part of governments protection protection or protective duty is about armed forces and that of course does include border enforcement one of the points of having a nation of your own is it's for the people who live here anyone who wants to come here has to ask permission and permission is not automatic it's given again by consent of the governed by the consent of the people who live here the idea of a universal right to immigrate to a nation that says I don't want you here founders would have said no that's that's immoral that's a violation of the moral principle that all men are created equal and that we therefore who have created our own government have a moral right to say who will be our future fellow citizens that's our duty and our right not someone elses the second part of protection and what government has to do to protect is is to create laws against crimes that's the most urgent part of the of the domestic politics side of the founders argument and so one of the topics that came up early on in America in during the Revolution and in its aftermath was to create constitutions and laws to protect citizens criminal laws for example Jefferson had a great quote on that in his he put together a proposed revision of the laws of the state of Virginia in 1778 in which he states that it's precisely because vicious and immoral men who try to take away the rights of other people that we have criminal law and without criminal law he said the purpose of society would not be achieved by which he meant protection and security of life liberty and property so if you ask people today sometimes I'll ask my students how does the government secure our rights they'll often give you a statement like well that's what the Supreme Court is for and they have rules against discrimination and so on well the founders would say no government protects your rights not just through the judiciary but through all three branches of government you have to have a legislature to make laws you have to have an executive to carry out arrests and prosecutions and punishments and a judiciary to decide is this person who's accused by the government truly guilty or not guilty you need all three branches that's what makes government protection possible through criminal law and and that's what we see you know occasionally their TV shows based on this idea of you know trials people prosecute that's how it's supposed to work one of the characteristic features of government today in America is the D prioritization of criminal law enforcement not everywhere but especially in major cities of America today the ability of police and prosecutors to to find criminals prosecute them successfully and have them punished is minimal there are some cities in which the police if they're called out on a theft if you call the police inside somebody stole something out of my house they'll go okay well fill out a report for you you can take it to the insurance company but no we're not gonna look into it founding fathers would say you guys don't get what government is for it's for protection and protection means you have to deter crime by making it clear to people who commit crimes they're gonna pay a penalty so you know figure out why you know what what's wrong what happened why why do our priorities somehow go somewhere else and if you ask Police Department's today or prosecuting RIT they'll say well we don't have a budget for it which means something has gone wrong at the level of the state legislature or at the level of city government that we're got money is being spent on something less than there's a lower priority than actual protection of the lives and properties of citizens that's a problem from the point of view of the founders but it is the way we do government today one could sum up the founders conception of law enforcement that was developed during the revolution in in to fray in two phrases equal protection of the laws and due process of law equal protection meaning and the founders view equal protection meant when there's there's going to be a rule a general rule that applies to everybody it will define what crimes are and will say what the penalties are going to be and government's duty is to provide equal protection so no matter how wealthy the perpetrator might be what race he might be or the sex of the person committing the crime government has the same obligation to prosecute and punish in the same way anyone who does that who commits the crime that's a that's fundamental but precisely because government is so strong and powerful when it's engaging in this activity of protecting it also needs to follow procedures called due process of law meaning you don't just take somebody and punish them without giving them a chance to defend themselves so government has to prove its case in theory at least in court for any significant punishment to take place for person to be deprived of liberty or property or money trial a right to defend the right to call witnesses a right to speak to about to a cross examine to deal with whatever you need to do bring forward whatever you need to bring forward in order to show if you can I didn't do that I wasn't I'm not guilty those two concepts equal protection of the law and due process of law were later embodied in Fourteenth Amendment which was meant to take the basic founders political theory of what government supposed to do that was developed during the American Revolution and then apply it to the States each state was from then on obliged by the federal cost tuition to provide the same protection of the laws and of the new process of law that that was already required and expected at the federal level in its own law enforcement jurisdiction one of the early debates in America was over do we need a federal government and if so what should be its scope and its powers the founders came up with a very simple way of dividing up that labor the federal government was going to be primarily responsible for foreign policy the state governments for domestic policy with some exceptions but basically the federal government didn't really have a whole lot to do in early American history other than foreign policy now there were some exceptions to that the state's government federal government was given some powers to regulate commerce to basically to maintain a national free market and so on but that those were general exceptions generally the states handled things having to do with property law commerce and contracts things of that kind and I'll be talking about that and a talk I give later on in the series today when we teach American government in college we often tend to focus on the national government that's of course the exciting part the big you know the one that everyone notices and of course today the feds have become so important we tend to forget the role of the states which still remains quite powerful even today I believe I believe the percentage of court cases that are handled at the federal and versus the state level is about that's over ninety percent still our state court cases so most law most law enforcement most legal issues come up not at the federal level at all and that is how they designed it and to that extent it still there's to some extent that same division of labor still prevails one of the things that John Quincy Adams pointed out in a famous speech he gave on July fourth eighteen eighteen twenty one was that they you know that the Revolution the American Revolution had its heroes and of course what everyone tends to think of things like George Washington the others great generals of that period the the soldiers the people who sacrifice their lives to create an independent nation and that's truth Adam says that was true but what he adds to that is he says you know there are other people who were also heroes of the American Revolution and we don't tend to acknowledge that those are the people he said who figured out how to write the constitutions and the laws state and federal that have given us our Liberty and enable us to sustain that Liberty they said they're heroes too because that's not easy to do I want to conclude this talk by asking the question what then was America meant to be its time of the founding and I want to emphasize again ideas are not people the ideas of the American Revolution were indeed unique to the American Revolution but those ideas are meant to be universal for all mankind but it was a particular people it was these people over in America the British settlers other Europeans were here predominantly Europeans who made the nation what it was and they were not randomly assembled from all around the world one of the things the founders were very conscious of is how difficult it is to establish and sustain a political regime there's a it's going to be a free regime a free a freedom regime of freedom John J in Federalist to points out that a that Americans really do belong together not just because they held the same political principles and he does mention that but also because they are quote a people descended from the same ancestors speaking the same language professing the same religion attached to the same principles of government very similar in their manners and customs and Jays point partly was if it hadn't been for all those things we already had in common prior to forming the Union we might not have been able to do it liberty is only possible to be established in the founders minds if the people are capable of supporting Liberty and living according to the requirements of Liberty there are many cultures in the world today and there were then to where the people who live in these places don't like freedom and to have no experience of freedom the founders in fact doubted openly whether places like Latin America or even some places in Europe could ever maintain a regime of political freedom natural rights belong to everyone in the founders view but it you have the right obviously the right to create a free country but you don't always have the ability to it depends on who lives there and what their attitudes are and how good their leadership is in some cases the founders pointed out you can't have consent of the governed if you're going to have any kind of protection of the rights of the individual there was a revolution in Haiti that took place during the 1790s and people the founding was saying they're not going to be able to have a free government there they're not gonna have election you can't have an elective government in Haiti probably a military despotisms the best they're going to do that was the quote from Hamilton and Jefferson held the same view when in get asked about Latin America in the eighteen 1820s he said look this is place it's gonna be really difficult to form any kind of solid lasting free government there I hope they can do it he said they ought to they deserve it but it's going to be tough the founders had answers as to how to keep the population morally capable of being free they didn't think it would work everywhere but they did think it would work here I'll talk about that later in the series thank you you

Channel: Hillsdale College

Views: 226,987

Rating: 4.942966 out of 5

Keywords: hillsdale, college, constitution, con 101, learning, politics, america, declaration, independence

Id: wvCWORnRy1A

Length: 29min 28sec (1768 seconds)

Published: Tue Oct 01 2019