[CTRL] (Fwd) Claremont Institute Precepts: Trenton's Battle of Princi
-Caveat Lector- --- Forwarded Message Follows --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Claremont Institute Precepts: Trenton's Battle of Principle, Part IV Date sent: Thu, 24 Jun 1999 11:24:24 -0700 The Claremont Institute--PRECEPTS | | June 24, 1999 Visit http://www.claremont.org | | No. 177 In our last three Precepts, we discussed the shocking fact that in New Jersey, certain liberal legislators take the view that the Declaration of Independence is not fit to be recited by schoolchildren. So far we have proved that the Declaration was meant to include women, blacks, and indeed all human beings, when it said that "all men are created equal" and "endowed with certain unalienable rights." And we have explained that the Founders, although some of them did not fully live up to this principle of equality, deserve our respect, and our children's respect, for establishing that principle as the standard of government. We have also pointed out a logical contradiction in these legislators' arguments: At the same time they condemn some of the Founders for holding slaves in violation of the Declaration, they condemn the Declaration, whose principles condemned slavery. In concluding our series, we will unravel this contradiction. Doing so, we will discover the most important question facing the American people today. The key to both is the meaning of the Declaration itself. According to the Declaration, humans are created equal in terms of their natural rights--the rights to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, speech, worship, property, and so forth. People are born with these rights, which precede government. In fact, government is formed solely to protect these rights, and "derives its just powers from the consent of the governed." In other words, government is limited in what it can do by two facts: It must protect, and not violate, natural rights. And it must work democratically, with the people's consent, rather than lording it over the people. This said, there is an obvious reason that some of New Jersey's liberal legislators, although they cynically use the Declaration to denigrate the Founders, are loath to allow New Jersey schoolchildren to recite the Declaration: They don't want these schoolchildren to grow up thinking that their rights are natural and belong to them, and that the government is supposed to work for them and obtain their consent, because these ideas are impediments to modern liberalism. Unlike in the past, the word "liberal" today describes the view that human rights flow not from human nature, but from government. It describes the view that government's purpose is not to defend natural rights, but (paraphrasing Hillary Rodham Clinton) to change human nature. It describes the view that for government to accomplish this goal, our representative institutions must be overlaid with an administrative apparatus that can operate independently of the people's consent. How dangerous, from this viewpoint, to have schoolchildren reciting lines from the Declaration that condemn not only 1850s-style plantation slavery, but 1990s-style administrative despotism. Under such subversive influence, these schoolchildren might grow into voters who resent surrendering up to a half of their earned income to pay the salaries of unelected bureaucrats, so that these bureaucrats can intrude on how they run their businesses, schools and homes! Last time, we mentioned that in the years before and during the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln based his arguments and actions explicitly on the principles of the Declaration. In doing so, he was opposed by two main arguments. One was the argument of the Supreme Court's _Dred Scott_ decision of 1857, which held that the Founders did not mean to include blacks when they said in the Declaration that "all men are created equal." The second was the argument of such pro- slavery Senators as John Calhoun of South Carolina, that the principles of the Declaration were "self-evident lies." In essence, these are the same two arguments being made today by the liberal New Jersey legislators. Nor is this a coincidence. The Declaration was written for two purposes. The first was to declare independence, and thereby to form a new nation. The second and larger purpose was to provide the principle upon which we would preserve our freedom. As Lincoln wrote in 1859: "All honor to Jefferson--to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence of a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalm it there, that today, and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of re-appearing tyranny and oppression." Such harbingers are before us, in the open attacks in New Jersey on
[CTRL] (Fwd) Claremont Institute Precepts: Trenton's Battle of Princi
-Caveat Lector- --- Forwarded Message Follows --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Claremont Institute Precepts: Trenton's Battle of Principle, Part III Date sent: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 09:50:07 -0700 The Claremont Institute--PRECEPTS | | June 23, 1999 Visit http://www.claremont.org | | No. 176 Last time, we showed how legislators in New Jersey who condemn the Declaration of Independence contradict themselves. They want to banish the words of the Declaration from the schools there, because they believe the men who wrote it were hypocrites. These authors of the Declaration said "all men are created equal," but, we are told, they only meant white men. The contradiction is this: If you condemn Thomas Jefferson for being a hypocrite, then you find yourself in agreement with the Declaration of Independence. So you ought to be happy that children are learning what it says. This has apparently not occurred to Assemblywoman Nia Gill, a Democrat who led the charge against a bill that would require public school students to recite two sentences from the Declaration. We feel bound to intrude upon her busy career with this little bit of common sense. Now let us ask another question: Is it true that Thomas Jefferson and his fellow revolutionaries were hypocrites? What did they, personally, think about the rights of black people? What should we tell our children about them? We have to face the fact that Jefferson did not liberate his slaves. But this must be offset against other facts. For instance, Jefferson proposed a gradual emancipation law in Virginia in 1779. And as President in 1807, he supported abolishing the slave trade. Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence included a passionate condemnation of slavery, on the explicit basis of the slaves' humanity: "[The King of Britain] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people...captivating and carrying them into slavery Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought and sold, he has [suppressed] every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce" And here is one of Jefferson's most famous and important statements, taken from the only book he published: "For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labour for another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever." In light of these facts, can we doubt that Thomas Jefferson truly believed all men, regardless of color, to be equal in their natures, and slavery to be a terrible wrong? Although he did not fully live up to these beliefs, he was not a hypocrite. And let us not forget our other Founders, some of whom, like George Washington, liberated their slaves, and many others of whom, like Benjamin Franklin, never held slaves. To a man, these Founders condemned slavery in no uncertain terms. Consider just a few examples: Washington: "There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of [slavery]." Franklin: Slavery is "an atrocious debasement of human nature." James Madison: "We have seen the mere distinction in color...a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." America's Founders laid down, for the first time in history, the rights of every human being as the standard by which every government and every law should be judged. They risked their lives for that principle. Eighty-five years later, when Abraham Lincoln led the nation through a Civil War that extinguished slavery, he did so by appealing to that principle. That principle remains a light for us today. For all these things, we owe our Founders the deepest debt. We think it a good idea to teach our children two things: First, the principles of freedom. And second, respect for the Americans who first established that freedom as the purpose of our government. What a shocking thing, that there should be disagreement about this. It is indeed a sign of the times. Next time, we will consider where that disagreement originates. Sincerely, Larry P. Arnn President, The Claremont Institute - Copyright (c) 1999 The Claremont Institute To subscribe to Precepts, go to: http://www.claremont.org/subscrib.cfm , or e-mail us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] . To be removed from this list, go to :
[CTRL] (Fwd) Claremont Institute Precepts: Trenton's Battle of Princi
-Caveat Lector- --- Forwarded Message Follows --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Claremont Institute Precepts: Trenton's Battle of Principle, Part II Date sent: Wed, 16 Jun 1999 14:06:05 -0700 The Claremont Institute--PRECEPTS | | June 16, 1999 Visit http://www.claremont.org | | No. 175 New Jersey Assemblywoman Nia Gill and her friends in the liberal establishment are in a fit of rage because children in her state may be required each morning to recite two sentences from the American Declaration of Independence. They read: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Ms. Gill says of this proposal: "At the time these words were written only white men, and only white men with property, were perceived to be the beneficiaries of these words." In yesterday's Precepts, we have shown Ms. Gill, insofar as she is referring to women, is in error. But what about blacks? Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration himself, was a holder of slaves. This raises two questions: 1) Was not Thomas Jefferson a common hypocrite? 2) And if Tom and his buddies in the Revolution were common hypocrites, should we not reject them and all their works, including their principles? Consider the second question first. If we think a little more carefully than Ms. Nia Gill, a busy legislator, seems able to think, we will see that the answer to the second question makes the first one irrelevant. Why? Because a hypocrite is someone who does not live up to _his own_ principles. We condemn a hypocrite from the words that come out of his own mouth. We may not like a thief, but unless the thief condemns stealing we cannot call him a hypocrite. Similarly, slavery is bad, and we might very well condemn Thomas Jefferson as a slave holder--more on that below--but we cannot condemn him as a hypocrite unless he also condemned slavery. Of course, that is precisely what he did, right there in the Declaration of Independence. He did not write anything in the Declaration about "white men," or "white men with property." He wrote "all men." And as we have proved already, he meant women, too. If this New Jersey law, which Ms. Gill opposes, had been in force when she went to school, perhaps she would know this. That leaves Ms. Gill with a dilemma. She can condemn Thomas Jefferson for holding slaves, or she can condemn the Declaration. But she cannot condemn them both. We said yesterday that her position was illogical on this point. This is why. More later. Until then, I commend you to investigate this subject further at the Claremont Institute's web site, http://www.claremont.org. Sincerely, Larry P. Arnn President, The Claremont Institute - Copyright (c) 1999 The Claremont Institute To subscribe to Precepts, go to: http://www.claremont.org/subscrib.cfm , or e-mail us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] . To be removed from this list, go to : http://www.claremont.org/remove_public.cfm , or e-mail us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] . For general correspondence or additional information about the Claremont Institute, e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] , or visit our website at : http://www.claremont.org . Changing your e-mail address? Please let us know at : [EMAIL PROTECTED] . For press inquiries, contact Nazalee Topalian at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or (909) 621-6825. The mission of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. The Claremont Institute | 250 West First Street | Suite 330 | Claremont, CA 91711 | Phone (909) 621-6825 | Fax (909) 626-8724 AER ~~~ The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller, German Writer (1759-1805) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." Universal Declaration of Human Rights + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + "Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth
[CTRL] (Fwd) Claremont Institute Precepts: Trenton's Battle of Princi
-Caveat Lector- --- Forwarded Message Follows --- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Claremont Institute Precepts: Trenton's Battle of Principle, Part 1 Date sent: Tue, 15 Jun 1999 16:49:14 -0700 The Claremont Institute--PRECEPTS | | June 15, 1999 Visit http://www.claremont.org | | No. 174 This week in the state of New Jersey, a controversy has broken out that exhibits for all to see the choice before the American people. It concerns simply this: shall our children be taught to know and respect the founding instrument of our country? The lower house of the New Jersey legislature has just passed a bill that would require public school students to recite two sentences from the Declaration of Independence each morning with the Pledge of Allegiance. The students would say: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." These two sentences describe both in time and in principle the foundation of our country. They are the origin and the purpose, the alpha and the omega, of our nation. And today, they are controversial. Nia Gill, a member of the New Jersey house, led the opposition. She said: "At the time these words were written only white men, and only white men with property, were perceived to be the beneficiaries of these words." In this and the coming two Precepts, we will demonstrate three things beyond any question. First, that the statement by Ms. Gill is false as regards women. Second, that Ms. Gill's statement that the Declaration covered only white men is false, and her rejection of it on that ground is also illogical. And third, that the rejection of what the liberal intelligentsia says about the Declaration is simply necessary to the proper education of children, and also to the preservation of free government. First, let us see that Ms. Nia Gill has stated a falsehood. Let us look at the record. It is unambiguous. It is found in particular right there in the state of New Jersey. For in New Jersey, under the influence of the Declaration, women were given the vote. It happened there, right in New Jersey, for the first time in history, at the time of the Revolution. This practice followed upon the language of the New Jersey Constitution of 1776 (the same year as the Declaration) that permitted all "inhabitants" with fifty pounds in property and 12 months residence to vote. And women did vote there in large numbers. See the discussion of this in the fine book, sponsored by the Claremont Institute, _Vindicating the Founders: Race, Sex, Class and Justice in the Origins of America._ If this is true, you may wonder, why does the Declaration say "all men are created equal"? That is because in English, the masculine pronoun is also the generic. At the same time this expression was used, Alexander Hamilton wrote that "natural liberty is a gift . . . to the whole human race." Others wrote constantly, and interchangeably, of the "rights of human nature" and the "rights of man." We do not expect Nia Gill or her friends to know the history of New Jersey, or the meaning of the principles of the Declaration, or the history or meaning of anything else important for that matter. If Nia Gill is like the people who have invented these falsehoods about the Declaration, then she has an agenda that does not rest upon truth. That agenda is rather to remove the principles of the Declaration from their rightful authority in our national life. They have adopted in their place new principles that regard the human being as subject to the state, and justifying the state in a vast bureaucratic project that breaks the bounds of limited government. But more on that to follow. Sincerely, Larry P. Arnn President The Claremont Institute - Copyright (c) 1999 The Claremont Institute To subscribe to Precepts, go to: http://www.claremont.org/subscrib.cfm , or e-mail us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] . To be removed from this list, go to : http://www.claremont.org/remove_public.cfm , or e-mail us at [EMAIL PROTECTED] . For general correspondence or additional information about the Claremont Institute, e-mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED] , or visit our website at : http://www.claremont.org . Changing your e-mail address? Please let us know at : [EMAIL PROTECTED] . For press inquiries, contact Nazalee Topalian at [EMAIL PROTECTED] or (909) 621-6825. The mission of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life. The
