Thomas Jefferson on the nature of religious freedom

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions, which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry, that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right, that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;a nd finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them: Be it enacted by General Assembly that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of Religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that this Assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of Legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare that the rights hereby asserted, are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

-- Virginia Statute Establishing Religious Liberty (1786). 

Resolving the paradox of the American Revolution

Was the American Revolution a Real Revolution? The American Conservative raises that question by re-publishing this essay by the late Robert Nisbet, a sociologist and one of the leading conservative thinkers of the post World-War II period: Was There An American Revolution? Nisbet covers a lot of ground in this essay, touching on everything from class and property to religious liberty. Nisbet's conclusion, contra other conservatives like Russell Kirk and M.E. Bradford, is that the American Revolution was indeed a real revolution, impacting social, cultural and religious aspects of American life, leading to a profound change not only in the formal political institutions of the country but also the underlying spirit of the nation. As Nisbet concludes:

I would argue, then, that there was indeed an American Revolution in the full sense of the word–a social, moral, and institutional revolution that effected major changes in the character of American society–as well as a war of liberation from England that was political in nature. 

The line from the social revolution of the 1770s to the civil rights revolution of the 1960s is a direct one. It is a line that passes through the Civil War–itself certainly not without revolutionary implication–and through a host of changes in the status of Americans of all races, beliefs, and classes. The United States has indeed undergone a process of almost permanent revolution. I can think of no greater injustice to ourselves, as well as to the makers of revolution in Philadelphia, than to deny that fact and to allow the honored word revolution to be preempted today by spokesmen for societies which, through their congealed despotisms, have made real revolution all but impossible. 

The linkage between the revolutionary work of the American founding generation and the civil rights movement of the 1960s is one that was made repeatedly by many in the civil rights movement at the time, perhaps most notably by Martin Luther King, Jr. in The Letter From a Birmingham City Jail. 

Yet, at the time of the Revolution -- and it was a revolution in the sense that it cast off one set of political obligations and substituted another set -- its principles were grounded not in an abstract embrace of ideology but in constitutional premises and practices that tracked back deep into English common law. This common law patrimony was known to the colonists through their colonial charters and law courts, and through the study of the works of Sir William Blackstone. And yet, Blackstone's work furthered the cause of American Independence by dividing the colonists and the British government ever farther apart on the issue of representative government.

It is difficult to overestimate the impact that Blackstone had on the American Founding era, during both the revolutionary period and the formation of the American Republic afterward. For men of those times, Blackstone served as the source of their knowledge of the English common law tradition, as well as one of the major theorists of natural law. The close study of Blackstone was for many American lawyers their only academic exercise before qualifying for the bar, and more copies of Blackstone's mammoth Commentaries on the Laws of England sold in the American colonies and the early United States than sold in England itself.

With all that in mind, head on over the The Imaginative Conservative and read Richard Samuelson's essay on Blackstone's influence on our nation's struggle for independence: The Blackstonian Causes of the American Revolution. Samuelson does a very good job of demonstrating how the American Founders were shaped by Blackstone's theory of English constitutionalism while at the same time Blackstone's embrace of parliamentary supremacy made reconciliation between the rising American colonies and the Mother Country all the more problematic.

This eventually forced the colonists into the position of either submitting to Parliament without the limitation of the traditional rights and liberties of the colonies, or throwing off the authority of the King in Parliament to assert their own independence. As Samuelson writes:

Blackstone made colonists choose between being free and being British. The necessities of an empire run by Parliament from the imperial center became incompatible with the liberties of British subjects living on the imperial periphery. In his essay, “The Irrelevance of the Declaration,” Reid points out that once one gets past the first two paragraphs, the Declaration of Independence is nothing more than a common law indictment of King George. In other words, declaring independence from Great Britain was a final act of devotion to the Whig constitutional principles that Anglo-Americans had imbibed since their settlement. Americans assumed a separate and equal station with their mother country so that they could enjoy the rights of Britons, and continue the mission of a free, protestant people in America. 

That last observation cannot be emphasized enough. For the American patriots, Protestantism was a key feature of American political economy. No less a statesman than Edmund Burke recognized this in his famous analysis of the role that dissenting Protestantism played in the American commitment to liberty, given in his Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies, dated March 22, 1775:

Religion, always a principle of energy, in this new people is no way worn out or impaired; and their mode of professing it is also one main cause of this free spirit. The people are Protestants; and of that kind which is the most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion. This is a persuasion not only favourable to liberty, but built upon it. I do not think, Sir, that the reason of this averseness in the dissenting churches, from all that looks like absolute government, is so much to be sought in their religious tenets, as in their history. Every one knows that the Roman Catholic religion is at least coeval with most of the governments where it prevails; that it has generally gone hand in hand with them, and received great favour and every kind of support from authority. The Church of England too was formed from her cradle under the nursing care of regular government. But the dissenting interests have sprung up in direct opposition to all the ordinary powers of the world; and could justify that opposition only on a strong claim to natural liberty. Their very existence depended on the powerful and unremitted assertion of that claim. All Protestantism, even the most cold and passive, is a sort of dissent. But the religion most prevalent in our northern colonies is a refinement on the principle of resistance; it is the dissidence of dissent, and the Protestantism of the Protestant religion. This religion, under a variety of denominations agreeing in nothing but in the communion of the spirit of liberty, is predominant in most of the northern provinces; where the Church of England, notwithstanding its legal rights, is in reality no more than a sort of private sect, not composing most probably the tenth of the people. The colonists left England when this spirit was high, and in the emigrants was the highest of all; and even that stream of foreigners, which has been constantly flowing into these colonies, has, for the greatest part, been composed of dissenters from the establishments of their several countries, and have brought with them a temper and character far from alien to that of the people with whom they mixed. 

And it is in Burke's analysis that we find the resolution of the paradox of the American Revolution -- that it was a revolution that changed everything, while at the same time being a revolution "prevented and not made" (to use Russell Kirk's phrase). The American principles vindicated by the Revolution where themselves principles grounded in heritage of most of the colonists -- a heritage that valued the stability of English law but which also chaffed at the restrictions of English government, particularly those restrictions that were felt in the religious sphere. There was, in Burke's wording, "the principle of resistance" met with the "spirt of liberty." And it was this spirit of liberty that drew in immigrants from non-British lands, immigrants who more often than not were dissents of the religious establishments in their native countries.

So, Nesbit, Kirk, and Bradford were all right -- although in different ways. The American Revolution was indeed a true revolution, a casting off of the old in favor of the new, while at the same being being a revolution grounded in the established practices and perspectives of colonial society. The keys, as in so much of understanding the American Revolution, are found not only in the work of the American Founders, but in Burke and Blackstone as well.

Alexander Hamilton & William Blackstone on the nature of government

One of the often overlooked documents leading up to the American Revolution is The Farmer Refuted, written in 1775 by a young Alexander Hamilton. One of a number of critical works that set the stage for American independence, Hamilton's treatise set forth in very clear terms much of the intellectual foundation to justify the colonists' move to defend their rights against incursions by the British government.

While not an explicit call for independence,  The Farmer Refuted is an excellent statement of the principles that would eventually lead the Americans to declare their separation from the British Empire. The core of Hamilton's argument in The Farmer Refuted centers around divinely-given natural law as the core of human obligation to one another. This natural law, since it comes from God, is not dependent on human government or human institutions for its validity, but instead stands as judge over human laws and customs.

Hamilton cites as his authority for this point not the Bible or any of the classical or scholastic writers who discuss natural law, but rather William Blackstone, the great compiler of the principles of English law. He does this, of course, to ground his point in the firm soil of the English Constitution -- to demonstrate that his point is not some radical notion but rather is part of the traditional approach to law and morality that sustained the British Empire itself.

The natural law defends the rights of Americans as much as the rights of Englishmen because, as Hamilton quotes Blackstone, "It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times." After his citation of Blackstone, young Hamilton then began to build an argument about the nature of government. Since God creates human beings and sustained them, the rights of human beings are dependent upon God's natural law. Understood by reason, which is itself a gift of the Creator, natural law allows human beings to "discern and pursue such things as were consistent with [their] duty and interest." Critically, natural law gives to each person "an inviolable right to personal liberty and personal safety." In the absence of government, no person has the right "to deprive another of his life, limbs, property, or liberty," or to command another person under obedience.

Striking directly at the British claim to be able to govern by right other than consent, Hamilton then applies these principles to the notion of government's origin. "[T]he origin of all civil government, justly established," Hamilton proclaims, "must be a voluntary compact between the rulers and the ruled." In such a compact, the power of government is limited in order to secure the "absolute rights" of the people. No pedigree can substitute for the consent of the governed, "what original title can any man, or set of men, have to govern others, except for their own consent?" To assume such power, "to usurp domination," is to break God's natural law, and thus renders such an assumption invalid. The people have, in Hamilton's words, "no obligation to obedience" in such a situation.

Hamilton concludes this portion of his argument with another quote from Blackstone, book-ending, as it were, his position on the necessity of consent of the governed with the authority of the great expositor of the English legal system. The principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature, but which could not be preserved in peace without that mutual assistance and intercourse which is gained by the institution of friendly and social communities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these absolute rights of individuals.

With that, Hamilton expressed in detail the fundamental principles about God, natural law and government by consent that would later be used by Jefferson at the beginning of the Declaration of Independence. While Jefferson's formulation of those principles is well-known, Hamilton's earlier, more precise and grounded formulation of those same principles in The Farmer Refuted deserves greater appreciation by Americans and all those concerned with human liberty and limited government.

Tillman and Blackman: bringing light to President Trump and the Constitution's emoluments clause

If you've been following NRC's Facebook page, you know that this blog's own Professor Seth Barrett Tillman has co-authored a series of posts with Professor Josh Blackman over at the Washington Post online detailing flaws in efforts to apply the emoluments clause of the Constitution to President Trump and his private business activities. Their work there is high-level constitutional and historical scholarship packaged to be accessible to a non-specialist audience. And it makes crystal clear that which so many of the leading "scholars" of constitutional law would rather have opaque.

Part 1 is here.

Part 2 is here.

Part 3 is here.

Part 4 is here.

Part 5 is here.

Professor Tillman took a lot of flack prior to publishing this series for his views on the emoluments clause and its applicability to President Trump. We won't go into that here, but here's a New York Times story about the controversy about Tillman's groundbreaking scholarship regarding the emoluments clause and its applicability to the president. His work with Professor Blackman is so definitive that his leading critics have issued formal apologies to him. Some of those apologies are online here and here.

Why is all this important? Because the emoluments clause is the basis of a lawsuit designed, ultimately, to pressure President Trump from office by targeting his businesses. The strategy targeting Trump's businesses is outlined in this post over at Instapundit. Tillman and Blackman have done yeoman's service in showing how weak the overall legal arguments against the president truly are.

The flowering of the West in the American Founding

What are the roots of the West, that civilization that has given birth to so much that the modern world takes for granted: the rule of law, human rights, limited government, free enterprise, and so much else? Among conservatives, it is often said that the roots of the West are in Athens and Jerusalem, symbols of the classical Greek culture and the Judeo-Christian tradition that informs the moral, ethical and political basis of the Western patrimony. Others point to the great synthesis of classical philosophy and Christian faith that took place in the late classical and medieval period, when the light of faith centered in the Rome kept the fires of civilization burning in the West as barbarian waves reshaped the map and peoples of Europe. Still others look to the Enlightenment as the basis of the modern West, with its combination of optimism and skepticism, boundlessness and tragedy.

The roots of the West are undoubtedly found in Athens and Jerusalem and Rome, but that those three are insufficient to explain the full flowering of Western civilization and the full development of its ideals. It was the Enlightenment that adds to the full picture of the West and its meaning, but not the Enlightenment that so many look too -- the Enlightenment of Kant and Voltaire, of pure reason devoid of tradition, custom and context. Instead, the Enlightenment that mixed with Athens and Greece and Rome to form the great currents of the West at its zenith is the British Enlightenment. Informed by the great well-springs of English culture and law, nourished by study of the classical tradition and the Christian faith, the British Enlightenment built upon the traditions of the West rather than seeking to tear them down and replace them with the fancies of decultured reason. Not reason devoid of connection to real life but common sense bolstered by experience were the guideposts of inquiry. Rather than the rights of man viewed in terrible abstract, the rights of Englishmen were the concern of the British Enlightenment's ethics. The names of the men who brought us this British Enlightenment are familiar to any student of 18th century Britain: David Hume, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke.

And in America too the British Enlightenment took root, further vitalized by the frontier revivalism of Whitfield and the early Methodists. Benjamin Franklin -- great friend of philosophers and evangelists alike -- is the exemplar of this American Enlightenment, but others of the Founding Generation were part and parcel of this movement, perhaps none moreso than John Adams. America's British culture, as Russell Kirk called it, drank deep of the well-springs of Athens, Jerusalem, Rome and England, and it is in the Founding Period in America that the ideals of the West blaze forth fully in clarity and power, in many instances beyond the realization of the Founders themselves. As the late Peter Lawler put it so insightfully, "they built better than they knew."

The Founders were well-grounded in the law and theory of the British system of government, and many of them were quite well-read in the principles not only of the British Enlightenment but of the Continental Enlightenment as well. And to a degree difficult for many modern Americans to understand, the Founding generation was shaped by classical literature from Greece and Rome. Nearly every literate person had a least a passing acquaintance not only with the ancient Hebrew and Christian patrimony of the Bible, but with the stories, myths and literature of the ancient Mediterranean as well. A significant number of Americans could approach that classical heritage in one or both of its original languages -- Latin or classical Greek. Yet, classical education in colonial and early republican America wasn't primarily about learning Latin or Greek to read the classics -- it was about training people in virtue and civic responsibility. As a result, for America at the Founding, the great strands of the West all came together in a unique synthesis that resulted in the finest flowering of Western ideas in forms of the culture of the young American Republic.

To know the West, look to Aristotle and Cicero, to the Gospels and to Augustine, to Aquinas and Dante, and also to the American experiment of ordered liberty manifested in its public record: the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution of the United States; the constitutions of the individual States in Union; and the dialogues, speeches and letters of the American Founders.

James Madison on church-state separation

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Govt. from interference in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."

-- Letter to the Reverend Jasper Adams, January 1, 1832. 

What's the foundation of national pride? Pres. John Adams gives us an answer!

"If national pride is ever justifiable or excusable it is when it springs, not from power or riches, grandeur or glory, but from conviction of national innocence, information, and benevolence."

- Inaugural Address (March 4, 1797). 

What Washington knew about the link between property rights and religious liberty

One of the treasures of American literature are George Washington's letters to various groups of citizens following his election as the first president of the United States under our current Constitution. The letters are short and contain concise and dense reflections on the nature of ordered liberty in the new American Republic, explaining the nature and scope of freedom under the Constitution. 

Of particular interest is Washington's letter to the Jewish community in Newport, Rhode Island. Washington wrote the letter on August 21, 1790, as a response to a statement of welcome delivered by one of the leaders of the Touro Synagogue in Newport on the occasion of Washington's visit to that town following the ratification of the Constitution by Rhode Island. In the letter, Washington expresses his conviction about the importance of property rights to protecting other rights under the Constitution:  

Gentlemen: 

While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced on my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens. 

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security. 

If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people. 

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. 

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support. 

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity. 

May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid. 

May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.

G. Washington 

This is a telling statement about the nature of religious liberty, recognized by the Constitution, grounded not in the preference of the elite but in natural rights common to all and the duties of citizenship. Of additional interest is the linking of religious liberty and property rights. To draw that linkage in his letter Washington quotes the Prophet Micah from the Hebrew Bible:

And every man shall sit under his vine, and under his fig tree, and there shall be none to make them afraid: for the mouth of the Lord of hosts hath spoken. (Micah 4:4, Douay-Rheims Version.)

Property rights serve as an essential bulwark for other freedoms, in the they provide citizens with the space and the means to exercise their other rights. Without property rights, there can be no liberty of speech, of religion, of the press, or to be secure against unlawful searches and seizures. Washington understood this and propounded a constitutional order where citizens -- not just those favored by the government -- may sit secure in their possessions, "and there shall be done to make them afraid." To be secure in your property is to be free indeed. 

Happy Independence Day from NRC

  -- Childe Hassam, The Avenue in the Rain, 1917

"It is not here necessary to examine in detail the causes which led to the American Revolution. In their immediate occasion they were largely economic. The colonists objected to the navigation laws which interfered with their trade, they denied the power of Parliament to impose taxes which they were obliged to pay, and they therefore resisted the royal governors and the royal forces which were sent to secure obedience to these laws. But the conviction is inescapable that a new civilization had come, a new spirit had arisen on this side of the Atlantic more advanced and more developed in its regard for the rights of the individual than that which characterized the Old World. Life in a new and open country had aspirations which could not be realized in any subordinate position. A separate establishment was ultimately inevitable. It had been decreed by the very laws of human nature. Man everywhere has an unconquerable desire to be the master of his own destiny."

-- President Calvin Coolidge, Address at the Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, 1926.

Ronald Reagan's favorite Founding Father: Thomas Paine

Historian John Patrick Duggin's book on President Ronald Reagan is one of the better single-volume biographies of the late president and conservative icon. In Ronald Reagan: Fate, Freedom and the Making of History (2007, hardcover $24.51) Duggin brings up an interesting point that I hadn't realized, namely that Reagan was strongly influenced in his views by Thomas Paine. Paine is the Founding Father that Reagan quoted the most, and much of Paine's ideology (individual liberty, a suspicion of large institutions, hostility to taxation and government regulation) is evident in Reagan's general approach to conservatism & public policy.

In explaining Reagan's fondness for quoting Paine, Duggan notes that Reagan's brand of conservatism was remarkably untraditional in its rhetoric. In several different contexts, Reagan quoted Paine's stirring line, "We have the power to begin the world anew" -- a very untraditional sentiment. Reagan embraced Paine's idea that human beings can liberate themselves from corrupt and oppressive structures in order to create a new order of liberty and individualism. While Reagan appealed to voters of a more traditionalist perspective, he was no disciple of Russell Kirk & even less a disciple of Edmund Burke. Behind Reagan's conservativism was a streak of radicalism that is underappreciated both by many current conservatives who tend to be overly hagiographic when speaking of the former president & many modern progressives who ignorantly demonize him.

It is a fascinating twist of history that the most radical American revolutionary, Thomas Paine, serves as a primary philosophical influence on the most successful conservative president of the 20th century. Any attempt to understand Ronald Reagan must take into account the influence of Thomas Paine on his work. And any attempt to appreciate Thomas Paine's influence on America must look to the impact his work had on the ideas, rhetoric & program of Ronald Reagan.

Harlow Giles Unger on Patrick Henry

When it comes to the Founding Fathers, most of the attention is paid to those who were major players in national politics, and in particular those who attained the presidency. Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe get the lion's share of the glory in popular historical writing, while other major founders like Hamilton, Jay & Marshall receive significantly less attention by modern writers.  At the bottom of the heap nowadays are those Founders who were important for a brief period on the national stage but who spent most of their political careers working at the state or local level.  Names that were revered in the past, like Samuel Adams & Patrick Henry, simply don't get the kind of attention that they deserve given their historic impact on our nation's history.  Harlow Giles Unger, an historian and former visiting fellow at Mount Vernon, has written a delightful biography that tries to rectify the lack of attention paid to Patriot leader and Virginia politician Patrick Henry.  Lion of Liberty: Patrick Henry and the Call to a New Nation (2010, paperback $14.38, GoogleBooks preview here) hits just the right note  -- not too short, not too long -- and provides insightful glimpses into the life and work of one of the most important men who helped to bring about the creation of the American republic.

Unger provides a solid overview of the life of Henry, detailed but not too detailed for the general reader.  While certainly not exhaustive, Unger's book delves into key events in Henry's life, explaining how the episodes discussed helped to shape Henry's work and approach to politics.  Henry's commitment to liberty is explained within the context of Virginia's social and political climate, the prevalence of slavery and aristocracy in the Old Dominion, and the tension that existed between wealthy planters and hardscrabble farmers who were outside of the establishment of their day.

Unger demonstrates how Henry's opposition to what he viewed as oppressive royal government had roots that went back to Henry's earliest days as a backwoods lawyer, long before independence was even being discussed.   In fact, Henry's commitment to liberty is the thread that Unger uses to explain his subject's political career -- his support for the Patriot cause, his opposition to the Constitution of 1789, his support of the Bill of Rights, and his eventual shift from the Republican movement to the Federalist Party at the end of his life.  Henry's friendships and family life are explored as well, with particular attention paid to his legal career and his relationship with George Washington.

One aspect of the book that merits special interest regards the beginning of Henry's public life.  Henry's first major legal case was an argument in defense of a group of farmers who had refused to pay the church tax to support the established Anglican Church of Virginia colony.  Henry's opposition to what he saw as both a violation of religious liberty and the freedom of the people to be secure against oppressive taxation by distant imperial & colonial governments featured large in how Henry litigated the case.  Unger quotes a part of Henry's closing argument, where the colonial lawyer provided an eloquent condemnation of the desire of the Anglican clergy to feast at the tax trough:

Do they manifest their zeal in the cause of religion and humanity by practicing the mild and benevolent precepts of the Gospel of Jesus?  Do they feed the hungry and clothe the naked?  Oh, no, gentlemen!  Instead of feeding the hungry and clothing the naked, these rapacious harpies world, were their powers equal to their will, snatch from the hearth of their honest parishioner his last hoe-cake, form the widow and her orphaned children their last milch cow!  the last bed, nay, the last blanket from the lying-in woman!

Henry's opposition to government support of religious establishment would fade after the American Revolution, but prior to the split with the British, he viewed the Anglican Church as parasitic to the people. In his closing argument, Henry contended that the royal tax in support of the Anglican Church breached the king's duty to provide for the well-being of his people -- the poor were being dispossessed to aid the affluent clergy. This charge lead to cries of "treason," against Henry, much as his later calls for American independence would elicit the same cry.

Henry's approach to the question of public funding of religious bodies was part of a much deeper and sophisticated critique of government power. For Henry, liberty & the common good were intertwined principles, principles which in different contexts might lead to a shift in political positions in order to defend those underlying principles.

It is that view by Henry that explains his shift, at the end of his life, to support the Federalist Party.  Long a dedicated opponent of centralized power and a relentless critic of any step by which the federal government seemed to move beyond a limited scope, Henry was also committed to the United States as a single nation, not simply a collection of confederated republics. While an opponent of the ratification of the Constitution of 1789, Henry leaped to the charter's defense during Washington's administration, when local tax revolts were springing up in the frontier areas. Shocked at the political machinations of Jefferson & Madison, Henry moved to support Washington & the Federalists as the political culture of the 1790's grew increasingly polarized.

In 1799, after pleas from both John Marshall & a retired George Washington, a dying Patrick Henry ran for election to Congress, blasting Jefferson & Madison for their support for efforts to undermine national unity via the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions. While Henry, as Unger explains, had been "a bitter opponent of the Constitution, it was the law of the land, and he was, above all, a law-abiding citizen."  

Unger's book on Henry is well worth its price. A fascinating study of one of the most important public men of the founding era, Unger's work is a fitting reintroduction to the life & work of a pivotal Patriot leader.  Highly recommended.

Gordon Wood on Benjamin Franklin

"Of making many books," the Hebrew Bible warns us, "there is no end" (Ecclesiastes 12.12b, RSV). In the last 10 or 15 years, that seems to be the case regarding biographies of Benjamin Franklin. Top-tier American historians like H.W. Brands and Edmund S. Morgan have solid overviews of Franklin's life and work, and popular writers like Walter Isaacson have written books on him as well. Editions of Franklin's Autobiography are numerous.

One recent biography from the last 15 years stands out, though, both in its tone and its approach to Franklin: Gordon Wood's book The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin (2005, paperback $14.19). A comprehensive yet reasonably-sized volume, Wood's book recounts Franklin's life through the lens of his shift from a dedicated proponent of the British Empire to one of the pivotal Founding Fathers of the American Republic.

Wood uses Franklin's intellectual and emotional journey from loyalist to revolutionary as a template for understanding Franklin's life and accomplishments. It is a fascinating way for Wood to approach his subject. Wood looks at Franklin's intellectual history through the prism of Franklin's various life experiences. From his extremely humble origins as a workingman printer's apprentice to the heights he reached as a diplomat and founding father, Franklin's shifts of opinion, of conviction and of purpose are not only well-documented by Wood, but perhaps most importantly, well-explained. Franklin is a remarkably difficult figure to understand for the most part. Part of this is due to his own practice of not revealing his own inner thoughts, part of it is due to the remarkable length of his career, a career that saw massive social, economic and political changes in Pennsylvania, the British Empire, and in the American nation.

Wood's approach to Franklin helps to clarify and make sense of much of Franklin's work, both as a businessman, diplomat and politician. While not every mystery about Franklin is resolved via Wood's approach, it does shed a great deal of light on the consistent aspects of Franklin's ideas, ideals and beliefs over time. Some examples of the topics that Wood explores and brings light to are:

• Franklin's early efforts -- prior to the French & Indian War -- to facilitate the creation of a Union of the English colonies in the New World.
• Franklin's devotion of the British Empire, grounded in a belief that the American colonists were full participants and members of that Empire.
• Franklin's initial loyalty to the King, and his happiness at the elevation of George III to the throne of the Empire. 
• Franklin's growing disillusionment with the King & the Empire as it became increasingly clear that the British would never consent to the full equality of the colonists within the Empire.
• Franklin's diplomatic efforts in France as an outgrowth of his love of Europe. 

In addressing all of these topics (and several more, it should be said), Wood examines the consistencies in Franklin's thought over time, as well as the events that caused Franklin to change his views as circumstances around him changed. What Wood makes clear is that most of Franklin's fundamental principles remained constant throughout his life. While Franklin was fluid when it came to the means and methods that he employed to achieve the realization of those principles, the principles themselves remained remarkable stable over a long career. Much of the value of Franklin's career as a teaching tool revolves around his willingness to be flexible in the methods he used to pursue his goals.

In addition to exploring Franklin's life, Wood also devotes space to exploring Franklin's reputation, both during Franklin's own life but also after Franklin's death. As a result of Wood's approach, this is one of the most insightful and helpful books about Franklin that I've read in quite some time -- it may in fact be the best single-volume book about Franklin available in English. That is not to say that the book is perfect--Wood spends relatively little time discussing Franklin's religious beliefs and his discussion of Franklin's troubled family life is uneven and lacks the revelatory insight that Wood brings to bear on Franklin's professional history. That said, Wood's biography of Franklin is top notch and well worth a read. As the lazy days of summer appear on the horizon, this would be a great book for a July beach vacation or an August bank holiday.

Who gets to be a Founding Father?

One question that has always interested me is the way historians and the popular culture decide who qualifies as a Founding Father, or to use the more politically correct term, American Founder. The pantheon of the "greats" is pretty well established: Washington, followed in most lists (in varying order) by Franklin, Jefferson, Madison, Adams and maybe Hamilton dragging up behind with his fatal stomach wound inflicted by Aaron Burr. Then there's the second tier: John Jay, Patrick Henry, Gouverneur Morris. And then there are some really major figures of the period who for some reason just are lost in public consciousness: the Rev. John Witherspoon, Fisher Ames, Josiah Bartlett, James Wilson, and perhaps most tragically, Samuel Adams, who has been reduced by modern marketing to the level of a beer brand.

In recent years, in an attempt to be more inclusive of the contributions of women to our fair Republic, attempts have been made to cast Abigail Adams as a Founder -- which isn't all that bad an idea, I think. Her letters evidence that she was a delightful if difficult person, and certainly worthy of a spot in the American imagination for her contributions to understanding the American experiment. And Thomas Paine has been getting some of the recognition that he is so richly due. Are there any other neglected figures from the Founding Era who deserve more attention, more consideration as founders?

I think so. My thoughts on this point turn to another Adams, one who was just as successful as John, and perhaps more so: John Quincy Adams. President, member of the House of Representatives, abolitionist, diplomat. And it is in the last role that I wonder why he is usually excluded from consideration as a founder. While just a lad during the outbreak of the Revolution, he served as his father's aide in France. He also served as secretary to the American delegation to Russia. In other words, he was in important, if secondary, posts of public duty during the Revolution. He served in the Washington Administration in a diplomatic capacity, and served as Secretary of State under Monroe. So, he was alive during the right time period, he was working on behalf of the revolutionary cause, he had appointments in government after the revolution, and -- critically -- he won election to the presidency. So, why isn't he normally thought of as a Founding Father?

Here's another one for you: John Marshall. Marshall is best known for his tenure as chief justice of the Supreme Court, but he had a career before that. He was an officer in the Continental Army at Valley Forge, and he was a member of the Virginia legislature on several occasions. He was active in the fight to ratify the U.S. Constitution. He was John Adams's Secretary of State. In terms of his significant contribution to American government, his tenure on the Supreme Court and his opinion in Marbury v. Madison rank him second only to George Washington in his impact on the practice of American government. He led the Supreme Court as it settled the vexing question of the authority of the Court in exercising judicial review on questions of constitutional importance. He defended the independence of the Court in the face of attacks from the political prances of government. So, why isn't he normally thought of as a Founding Father?

Deism doesn't really describe the religious views of most American Founders

Awhile back I finished up reading David Holmes's excellent book Faiths of the Founding Fathers (Oxford University Press, 2006). I appreciate his balance and attention to detail throughout. He characterizes the major founders as falling into three basic patterns: orthodox Christians, Christian deists, and non-Christian deists. While Holmes’s division of the Founders into those broad theological categories has considerable merit, I think that his use of the term “deist” is a less than helpful choice to describe the theology of most of the Founders who weren’t orthodox Christians. 

Those folks, as Gregg Frazer has argued in his book The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders (University of Kansas, 2014), are best thought of as rationalistic theists. Most of them believed, for example, in a God who is active in human affairs, who is to be worshipped and prayed to, who will judge each and every person after death, etc. Even the least conventionally religious of the major founders, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, affirmed such a deity. This isn't a "watchmaker god" or some uninterested deity such as posited by the Roman writer Lucretius. While there is no question that many of the Founders eschewed orthodox trinitarianism, their conception of God remained theistic rather than deistic in its main points. To continue to refer to such Founders as deists risks confusion in the minds of modern folks, many if not most of whom do not realize that the theology of many of the Founders, even the least conventionally religious, was far more conservative than the term "deism" would indicate.

To expand on this point a bit, look at Benjamin Franklin. Franklin is generally acknowledged to one of the least religious of Founders. Early in his public career, he expressed in private correspondence to family members his own aversion to orthodoxy in religion and its professions of faith, particularly if such orthodoxy detracted from orthopraxy. As he wrote in a letter dated April 13, 1738: 

I think vital Religion has always suffer'd, when Orthodoxy is more regarded than Virtue. And the Scripture assures me, that at the last Day, we shall not be examined [on] what we thought, but what we did; and our Recommendation will not be that we said Lord, Lord, but that we did good to our Fellow Creatures. See Matth. 26.

Franklin doesn't evidence a hostility for orthodoxy per se, simply orthodoxy that detracts from the cultivation of right conduct. Works were at the center of true religion for Franklin -- not to exclusion of belief in God, but as the foundation for how to determine if that belief was authentic.  And he cited to the Christian New Testament in support of his approach.  

This approach to belief and works appears in Franklin's most well-developed articulation of his religious convictions, found in his Autobiography, an articulation that he referred to as "an intended Creed, continuing as I thought the Essentials of every known Religion, and being free of every thing that might shock the Professors of any Religion." Franklin then set forth this "Creed":

That there is one God who made all things. That he governs the World by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped by Adoration, Prayer and Thanksgiving. But that the most acceptable Service of God is doing good to Man. That the Soul is immortal. And that God will certainly reward Virtue and punish Vice either here or hereafter.

Franklin's views on religious belief & the necessity of works are consistent over time. Far from evidencing a hostility or apathy towards religious life, his views manifest a concern that belief  evidence itself in the life of the individual, and that the virtues & vices of the individual are the basis for God's provision of rewards & punishments both in this life & the life to come. 

While Franklin's creed is not expressly Christian (and was not intended to be), it certainly is not incompatible with orthodox forms of Christianity. More to the point, his statement of belief should put to rest any talk of him not affirming a theistic belief system. Franklin's God is no absentee landlord, but is an active presence in the world, who not only creates but "governs the World" via divine Providence. This God is worthy of worship -- including prayer and thanksgiving, indicating that Franklin believed that God acted in the lives of individual people, hence the benefit of asking God for help (through prayer) & thanking Him for His blessings.

Most touchingly, Franklin insists on the importance of good works in human life.  The best way to serve this God is through good works that serve our fellow human beings, and that the judgment of each person's immortal soul will be based on what he or she has done in this life.

While not a churchgoer like George Washington, or a Hebrew scholar like James Madison, Franklin -- who attended no church regularly nor could read the biblical languages -- left a far clearer statement of faith than virtually any of the other Founders, Jefferson included.  And it was a statement of faith that affirmed an active, providential Creator, a deity who would sit in judgment upon all human beings, rewarding and punishing them according to the deeds they did in this life. Whatever Franklin’s faith may have been, it wasn’t a faith in a watchmaker or absentee God.

Look also at Thomas Jefferson's religious views as expressed in his Gospel harmony available widely online and in an edition published by Beacon Press in 1989 as The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. Two key points become clear upon reading Jefferson's version of the story of Jesus. First, while Jefferson removed the miraculous components from the early ministry of Jesus (no virgin birth, no resurrection, no signs and wonders), he kept the passages that deal with Christ's return to judge the living & the dead. Aside from this stunning piece of supernaturalism in Jefferson's work, Jefferson affirmed that human beings would in fact stand at a final judgment to answer for how they lived their lives. While Jefferson was a skeptic of the Resurrection of Christ, he affirmed the Second Coming.

Second, Jefferson affirmed the power of the prayer, and of God's care for those to who petition him in prayer. This is evident in Jefferson's version of the teaching of Jesus regarding the Lord's Prayer, which Jefferson left intact in his Gospel harmony. Surprisingly, in this part of his work, Jefferson did not remove or edit the explicit references to both the Father & the Holy Spirit in the teachings of Jesus. As far as I can tell, this is the only passage in The Jefferson Bible that refers to the Holy Spirit, let alone the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. As Jefferson renders that critical passage: "If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?"

Again, whatever Jefferson's faith may have been, those passages in his work indicate that he believed in a God who was considerably more active, responsive & involved that the word "deism" generally conveys. It is time to put the label "deist" away when referring to most of the American Founding Fathers. 

The cause of national liberty in sum

Thus was achieved another, and still more glorious triumph in the cause of national liberty, than even that, which separated us from the mother country. By it we fondly trust, that our republican institutions will grow up, and be nurtured into more mature strength and vigour; our independence be secured against foreign usurpation and aggression; our domestic blessings be widely diffused, and generally felt; and our union, as a people, be perpetuated, as our own truest glory and support, and as a proud example of a wise and beneficent government, entitled to the respect, if not to the admiration of mankind.  

- Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, book III, chapter 1 (1833).

John Dickinson: the most important Founding Father most people have never heard of

Over at Front Porch Republic, John Wilson has written a short article on why we should pay more attention to John Dickinson (1732-1808):  Our Lost Founders.  Dickinson, as Wilson points out, was an influential force prior to the Declaration of Independence, known not just in the colonies but by the England as well.  Once independence had been declared, Dickinson was active in the Continental Congress and as a result ended up writing the first draft of our nation's first Constitution, the Articles of Confederation. Wilson notes that if Dickinson had not had the misfortune to fall ill during the Constitutional Convention of 1787, he likely would have had a larger impact on our current Constitution than he had -- although as Wilson points out in an aside, he had plenty of influence as it was, both on the text of the Constitution and on its eventual ratification. Dickinson was also a committed abolitionist.  Unlike many of the Founders, like Jefferson and Madison, who spoke against slavery while enjoying the benefits of claiming to own human property, Dickinson took decisive personal steps against the institution of chattel slavery.  Not content to merely talk the talk like Jefferson and Madison, Dickinson freed his slaves long before it was fashionable to do so.  As Wilson points out, Dickinson freed his slaves because of his commitment to the principles of the American Revolution -- that the freedom sought by the Americans was incompatible with the institution of chattel slavery.  Dickinson prophetically announced that the refusal of the Framers of the Constitution to address the problem of slavery head-on would cause nothing but trouble for the Republic.  Because the slavery issue was not settled on the side of human freedom, as Wilson summarizes Dickinson's position, the Republic was inevitably going to "have to face the consequences of our lack of courage."  

Aside from his historical importance and principled opposition to slavery, Dickinson also stands as a model of a prudent statesman -- a model well in need of revival in our own times.  As Wilson writes:

Dickinson’s first draft of the Articles included provisions for an impost, which would have given the government an income, and subtle powers for the executive functions of the legislature that together would have made the convention of 1787 unnecessary.  He signed off on the Constitution because he was convinced that a combination of the equality of the states (the Senate was his contribution to that frightful summer) and the “power of the people” would restrain what Hamilton and others hoped would become an English-style government.  He also uttered the wisest and most prudent statement of the entire constitutional debate.  On August 13, 1787, he said, “Experience must be our only guide.  Reason may mislead us.” John Dickinson lived long enough to know how right he had been.  We need to learn which of our fathers to honor.  Dickinson stands for the right combination of limited government, local loyalties, principled freedom, and the rule of law that republican government requires to survive.  We write biographies of nationalists, and pay too little attention to the men who gave us our liberty.

That quote by Dickinson is one of my favorites short quotes by any of the Founders.  It is a testament to his prudent and small-c conservative approach to politics and constitutional order.  A salutary example for our modern age!

Alexander Hamilton's unorthodox conservative constitutional jurisprudence

Tom's post from yesterday evening got me thinking about the constitutional wisdom of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton has long been overshadowed by many of the the major American founding fathers, largely because he had the misfortune of falling from political grace and then getting killed by Aaron Burr in a duEl. From such an end, knowledge of Hamilton quickly sank from popular culture, although thanks to the work of folks like Richard Brookheiser, Gordon Wood and Ron Chernow, he has finally received some of the attention from historical circles which he is due. And his story has even given rise to a popular Broadway musical exploring the themes and concepts of his amazing life.

In this post, I'd like to briefly look at Alexander Hamilton's contributions to the world of constitutional law—specifically, his approach to interpreting the Constitution as it developed between the Federalist Papers and his work as in both the Washington and Adams administrations. Hamilton is well-known for his defense of judicial review and the independence of the judiciary in the Federalist Papers. His arguments in favor of the power of the judiciary are part of his legacy as a legal thinker, and I won't take up space here simply repeating what others have already said. What bears closer inspection is Hamilton's approach to constitutional interpretation after the Constitution was ratified and during the time when he was in government.

As Forrest McDonald has noted, Hamilton's legal ideas were remarkably influential at the time, and "at least two of [Chief Justice John] Marshall's opinions were drawn directly from Hamilton's constitutional pronouncements." Hamilton advocated a flexible approach to constitutional interpretation, one that provided for a generous and expansive reading of federal power. It is no surprise that this kind of view closely paralleled his general political principles. But Hamilton also insisted that this expansive view of government power be limited by the Constitution's outline of government authority. Hamilton did not believe that the Constitution was simply a grant of general authority to the federal government; he was an enemy of the idea of a "living Constitution," of constitutional principles unmoored from the text of the Constitution itself. As he commented when discussing the power of the Congress to authorize corporations: "Whatever may have been the intention of the framers of a constitution, or of a law, that intention is to be sought for in the instrument itself, according to the usual & established rules of construction."

In addition, Hamilton contended that when discerning the intent of the Constitution's provisions, recourse outside of the text of the Constitution was to be avoided: "arguments drawn from extrinsic circumstances, regarding the intention of the convention, must be rejected."

Hamilton's approach to constitutional interpretation did not, therefore, reduce constitutional law to politics, nor was it an attempt to read the Constitution as an infinitely malleable text that would allow for the creation or recognition of new or novel rights. Hamilton believed that the Constitution's text was binding. He was, in effect, proponents of classic original intent jurisprudence, where the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution are sought by examining the actual text of the Constitution, rather than speculating on what the Framers might have meant, or by looking at extrinsic sources to supply the intent of the document.

Well, what about Hamilton's rather famous disagreement with Jefferson over the proper scope of federal authority under the Constitution? Hamilton's constitutional jurisprudence diverged from Jefferson's not over the question of original intent, but over the question of the explicit grant of authority to Congress under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution. Was the clause to be read expansively (as Hamilton and the Federalists advocated), or narrowly (as Jefferson and the early Democratic Republicans wanted)? Hamilton was convinced that it should be viewed expansively, in light of the Constitution's grant of enumerated powers to Congress. By the terms of the clause, Congress had the power to do what was "necessary and proper" to carry out its expressed powers. But in Hamilton's view, even this expansive reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause was still bracketed by the text of the Constitution itself.

Proof of this is seen in Hamilton's advocacy of the federal government improving the network of internal canals and roads within the United States in order to strengthen the country's domestic military defenses. Hamilton made this suggestion while serving, under President Adams, as the field commander of the federal army during the Quasi-War with France (1798-1800). An excessively expansive reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause, unhinged from the actual expressed powers of Congress, would see such internal defense improvements as being within Congress's overall military power with a possible connection to Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. But that wasn't Hamilton's argument. Hamilton argued that Congress had the authority to establish the roads he proposed under its power to "establish post offices and post roads." But in order to have the authority to build canals, Hamilton argued, Congress would have to be empowered by a constitutional amendment.

That episode demonstrates the the constrained nature of Hamilton's way of reading of the Constitution. While committed to the idea of a flexible and vigorous federal government, Hamilton was also committed to the Constitution's function as a limitation on that government's power. When the text of the Constitution indicated that Congress had power, Hamilton urged that that power be used to its utmost. But when the text indicated that Congress did not have a given power, Hamilton insisted that the text be followed, even if he thought the text should be changed in order to facilitate better policy. This approach sets Hamilton clearly within the conservative camp when it comes to interpreting the Constitution -- as in his general approach to law & government, he would be an unorthodox conservative today, but a conservative nonetheless. Constitutional structure & constitutional language both mattered to Hamilton. And it is in both that he found the best guarantees against an overly expansive sweep of government power.

(Tom's post immediately below demonstrates this point as well in reference to the Senate's role in judicial appointments.)

Does it matter if any of the American founders were Christians?

Some time ago, I used to post over at the American Creation blog, and one of the major recurring topics over there regards the religious beliefs & practice of the American founders. Were they Christians? What kind of Christians? Devout? Lax? Nicene orthodox? Unitarian? You get the idea.

Apart from the very real difficulty of accurately describing the religious views of some of the founders (who, for example, can coherently describe whatever Thomas Jefferson happened to believe at any given moment?), this kind of questioning is quite popular. It shows up quite a bit in constitutional law scholarship discussing the First Amendment's religion clauses and the role of faith in public life.  And yet...

Over at The American Conservative online, writer Paul Gottfried argues that this whole line of questioning is mistaken: Was George Washington a Christian? According to Gottfried's approach the relevant question isn't what did the founders believe? rather it is what kind of social and political order did the founders intend to create?  Gottfried has some thoughts on both questions, and his ideas are well worth pondering.  I particularly am struck by his framing of the debate about religion and the Founding Era. Worth a read.

The American founding as restoration

One question that keeps coming up in conservative & libertarian circles regards the relationship of the American founding with the deeper and broader traditions of Western civilization. Were the American revolutionaries as a whole seeking to create the world anew, or were they seeking to a re-establish the fundamental norms of civilized government that they had known and learned about during the colonial period -- the rights of Englishmen & the natural rights of all human beings?

This question is recurring because it goes to the heart of what conservatives & many libertarians view as a key aspect of political legitimacy in America: the rootedness of policy & political theory in the founding genus of American order. Here's one answer:

[T]he founding was the rearticulation of Western civilization in its Anglo-American mode. The founders were thoroughly educated in the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew sources of this civilization, often knowing the classic writings in the original tongues, in addition to French and English literature. While substantially influenced by the secularizing tendencies of the movement from Humanism to Enlightenment, the American Revolution was essentially restorative and retrospective, in the primary meaning of the term as a movement to re-establish truth and justice on a primordial foundation, one lost through corruption and rebellion by men motivated by the perversities of valuting ambition and the lust for power engendered by selfishness, sin, and evil. This model of revolution as the "turn of a wheel" represents the primary -- not exclusive -- tendency of the American and perhaps of all earlier Western revolutions to be restorations.

Elias Sandoz, A Government of Laws: Political Theory, Religion, and the American Founding (University of Missouri Press: 2001), pg. 151.

Want to think like the Founders? Study Latin!

The study of Latin isn't just for learning about the classical word or theology, it has an essential role to play in understanding 18th century Anglo-American history:

As for grammar, those who work through the writings of Thomas Jefferson, who had a classical education, or George Washington, who did not, or their English contemporaries Samuel Johnson, Edward Gibbon and Edmund Burke, will find that the syntax of Greek and Latin had affected the complexity and clarity of their expression and so of their thought. We need to know Latin if we want to think like the Founders. Forrest MacDonald saw this clearly. 'In thinking in eighteenth-century English...a rudimentary knowledge of Latin is highly useful; after all, every educated Englishman and American knew Latin, English words were generally closer in meaning to their Latin originals than they are today, and sometimes, as with the use of the subjunctive, it is apparent that an author is accustomed to formulating his thoughts in Latin.

-- E. Christian Kopff, Open Shutters on the Past: Rome and the Founders in Vital Remnants: America's Founding and the Western Tradition (ed. by Gary L. Gregg II, ISI: 1999), pg. 74.