Constitutional scholars, like President Obama, have called the United States Constitution a "charter of negative liberties" (https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/03/barack-obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution). I, vehemently, disagree with that characterization but he is absolutely right that a lot of the United States Constitution and its amendments state what government *can't* do to you. The United States Constitution starts with the principle that there are God-given individual rights to life, liberty, and property and that the United States Government will be restricted in how it can infringe upon those rights. I wonder how this will play in a (larger and larger) secular world since there is no submission to a higher power and, as a result, the concept of "unalienable rights" is fundamentally incompatible?
Regardless, thanks for the brief history lesson of the Magna Carta!
That's a good point about our increasingly secular world and the challenges that imposes on our ability to frame inalienable rights.
Historically, we pinned things we didn't understand on acts of god. Thunder was the work of Zeus, the waves of Poseidon. My grandpa told me god was bowling, heh.
As we evolved our understanding of nature, we relieved the gods of their duties and their blame. As we evolve our philosophy, we've done and will continue to do that with things classified as unalienable. There's that thought experiment about imagining a world where you get to make all of the rules apriori and are then assigned to inhabit a random person in that new world which you created. The assumption is that you would try very hard to create a fair and just system because of the possibility that you would be manifested into the lowest position in that society.
It may be harder to define what is unalienable without divine backing but it certainly worth doing. I think humanity will be able to evolve toward a completely secular foundation for liberty eventually. My biggest concern for the short and medium term is whether we can do it peacefully.
What makes the Constitution so special is that it established a new society that was not dedicated to any Royal elite or Super natural entity (God). In other words those things are not necessary for free people and we the people do not have to live for any god or elite.
It doesn't. But having a better understanding The United States Constitution (IMHO) also requires reading The Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers. The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It is within this framework that we have the concept of unalienable rights. It happens that the framers of the Constitution happened to be Christians but I don't think there is a strict necessity for the god to be the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God. And my entire point was that something powerful that was external to the state (the Creator) and was responsible for said rights. And in a world without a power external to the state I do worry that the concept of an unalienable right will be diminished.
I'm not a long form blog reader. This post had my interest from start to finish. Thanks for sharing a setting the stage for your belief in the importance of liberty! Keep it coming.
The events that led to Magna Carta were extremely chaotic and probably felt to the people of the time as the end of history. We'll see how the next decade plays out. Unfortunately, I think it will be very interesting.
Thank you and you're very welcome! This one was a particular pleasure to write. It's such a fascinating story and the scholarship on the subject is top notch.
But didn’t the Magna Carta simply amount to the freedom of white people to exploit others? Certainly the freedoms enshrined were not afforded non-whites, until the economics made “freedom” for non-whites more profitable.
Magna Carta was largely a document written by Anglo Saxon elites. They didn't even consider the common person at the time, though subsequent events demonstrate that common people wanted the provisions in that document to apply to them. It was explicitly not about the 'right to exploit others'. Rather, it was freedom from exploitation from the crown that was at issue.
I encourage you to check out some of the sources cited in the essay. The story is fascinating and, while it doesn't deal directly with freeing the African people from exploitation from European crowns, one could readily argue that the founding principles of Magna Carta and the evolution those principles underwent in the intervening years directly resulted in the American Civil War which was fought in part to emancipate the slaves and end slavery. Since 1215, no fight for liberty is untouched by the influence of this incredible document.
The Civil War was NOT fought - even a little bit - to end slavery. Lincoln made it clear in his second inaugural address (if I’m not mistaken), that his aim was to preserve the Union & if he could do so without freeing a single slave, he would. Ironically, “emancipation” only came after the South had issued a similar proclamation...only for those who fought for the Confederacy (yet, all blacks “freed” were really held as “contraband,” only entitled to freedom if they served the North as well).
All that to say, whatever parts of the Civil War had to do with “slavery” none had to do with the humanity of and freedom for Black people. It was all about the Northern finance effort to get out from under the debts incurred financing slavery when they wanted to shift financing toward industrialization.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. You're right that the real thing at issue is the balance of power. Magna Carta was more of a line in the sand than a revolution. The concepts codified in it had been in place in a patchwork of agreements prior to 1215. You rightly point out that it was not clear sailing from Magna Carta to today. It was a seed that grew, not a plan that was executed.
I appreciate the feedback on the flow of my reasoning. I can see how it was abrupt. It was difficult for me to craft a tight narrative on the subject and it still grew to 2700 words, my longest piece yet! That you read it so carefully and thoughtfully is a great honor. Thank you for that and for helping me grow as a writer.
Constitutional scholars, like President Obama, have called the United States Constitution a "charter of negative liberties" (https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2008/11/03/barack-obamas-poor-understanding-of-the-constitution). I, vehemently, disagree with that characterization but he is absolutely right that a lot of the United States Constitution and its amendments state what government *can't* do to you. The United States Constitution starts with the principle that there are God-given individual rights to life, liberty, and property and that the United States Government will be restricted in how it can infringe upon those rights. I wonder how this will play in a (larger and larger) secular world since there is no submission to a higher power and, as a result, the concept of "unalienable rights" is fundamentally incompatible?
Regardless, thanks for the brief history lesson of the Magna Carta!
That's a good point about our increasingly secular world and the challenges that imposes on our ability to frame inalienable rights.
Historically, we pinned things we didn't understand on acts of god. Thunder was the work of Zeus, the waves of Poseidon. My grandpa told me god was bowling, heh.
As we evolved our understanding of nature, we relieved the gods of their duties and their blame. As we evolve our philosophy, we've done and will continue to do that with things classified as unalienable. There's that thought experiment about imagining a world where you get to make all of the rules apriori and are then assigned to inhabit a random person in that new world which you created. The assumption is that you would try very hard to create a fair and just system because of the possibility that you would be manifested into the lowest position in that society.
It may be harder to define what is unalienable without divine backing but it certainly worth doing. I think humanity will be able to evolve toward a completely secular foundation for liberty eventually. My biggest concern for the short and medium term is whether we can do it peacefully.
What makes the Constitution so special is that it established a new society that was not dedicated to any Royal elite or Super natural entity (God). In other words those things are not necessary for free people and we the people do not have to live for any god or elite.
I was under the impression that the US Constitution did not mention god.
Correct. The Bill of Rights specifically makes it clear that the state is a secular entity and foresaw the dangers of mixing religion and government.
It doesn't. But having a better understanding The United States Constitution (IMHO) also requires reading The Declaration of Independence and The Federalist Papers. The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It is within this framework that we have the concept of unalienable rights. It happens that the framers of the Constitution happened to be Christians but I don't think there is a strict necessity for the god to be the Christian/Jewish/Muslim God. And my entire point was that something powerful that was external to the state (the Creator) and was responsible for said rights. And in a world without a power external to the state I do worry that the concept of an unalienable right will be diminished.
I'm not a long form blog reader. This post had my interest from start to finish. Thanks for sharing a setting the stage for your belief in the importance of liberty! Keep it coming.
Appreciate you, David. Thank you for supporting me in this effort!
Who is thinking that big about the future today? And what does that look like. Or is it the end of history?
The events that led to Magna Carta were extremely chaotic and probably felt to the people of the time as the end of history. We'll see how the next decade plays out. Unfortunately, I think it will be very interesting.
Great article! Thanks for the links to further information on the Magna Carta!
Thank you and you're very welcome! This one was a particular pleasure to write. It's such a fascinating story and the scholarship on the subject is top notch.
But didn’t the Magna Carta simply amount to the freedom of white people to exploit others? Certainly the freedoms enshrined were not afforded non-whites, until the economics made “freedom” for non-whites more profitable.
Magna Carta was largely a document written by Anglo Saxon elites. They didn't even consider the common person at the time, though subsequent events demonstrate that common people wanted the provisions in that document to apply to them. It was explicitly not about the 'right to exploit others'. Rather, it was freedom from exploitation from the crown that was at issue.
True. But what did it ultimately amount to? Because it damn sure didn’t free African people from exploitation by European “crowns.” 🤔
I encourage you to check out some of the sources cited in the essay. The story is fascinating and, while it doesn't deal directly with freeing the African people from exploitation from European crowns, one could readily argue that the founding principles of Magna Carta and the evolution those principles underwent in the intervening years directly resulted in the American Civil War which was fought in part to emancipate the slaves and end slavery. Since 1215, no fight for liberty is untouched by the influence of this incredible document.
Believe me brother. I appreciate the dialogue.
The Civil War was NOT fought - even a little bit - to end slavery. Lincoln made it clear in his second inaugural address (if I’m not mistaken), that his aim was to preserve the Union & if he could do so without freeing a single slave, he would. Ironically, “emancipation” only came after the South had issued a similar proclamation...only for those who fought for the Confederacy (yet, all blacks “freed” were really held as “contraband,” only entitled to freedom if they served the North as well).
All that to say, whatever parts of the Civil War had to do with “slavery” none had to do with the humanity of and freedom for Black people. It was all about the Northern finance effort to get out from under the debts incurred financing slavery when they wanted to shift financing toward industrialization.
See W. Allen Salisbury’s “The Civil War & the American System.” https://amzn.to/3OXqke4
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. You're right that the real thing at issue is the balance of power. Magna Carta was more of a line in the sand than a revolution. The concepts codified in it had been in place in a patchwork of agreements prior to 1215. You rightly point out that it was not clear sailing from Magna Carta to today. It was a seed that grew, not a plan that was executed.
I appreciate the feedback on the flow of my reasoning. I can see how it was abrupt. It was difficult for me to craft a tight narrative on the subject and it still grew to 2700 words, my longest piece yet! That you read it so carefully and thoughtfully is a great honor. Thank you for that and for helping me grow as a writer.