1669 The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina & Antidisestablishmentarianism

Submitted by Robert (United States), Sep 14, 2018 at 11:14

Dear Daniel Pipes,

As you know, until more or less World War I, the United States was Intellectually provincial. What was Western Civilization was most manifest in five (5) great colonial empires: (1) Great Britain, (2) France, (3) Germany, (4) Austria-Hungary, and (5) Russia. The United States was still an intellectual backwater where "West" meant the unexplored and unknown Frontier. For example, in Mathematics, towards the end of the 19th Century, it was Germany, where David Hilbert taught that an American graduate student looked to for pursuing his studies. We Americans, for all our other intellectual requirement looked to Great Britain, including Law, Philosophy and Political Science.

To understand Euclid's Axiomatics,it was Hobbes we admired - because he was infatuated with Euclid, so was Thomas Jefferson who embodied it in our Declaration of Independence; but this document was merely the Rationalization for breaking away from the British Empire, and had no direct legal consequence, as in the case of the 13 Colonial Charters.

In point of fact, the was to understand John Locke's "social contract" isn't in theory, but practice: it was he who drafted "The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina" (1669):

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/nc05.asp

By 1776, we Americans lived under 13 distinction colonial charters, and each was a "social contract" as understood by John Locke. Every COLONIALIST who arrived by ship on the East Coast (New England) had arrived in the "WILDERNESS" subject to the Contract of the particular Colony.

When the American Revolution came, these Americans (the "Liberals" as opposed to the "Conservatives") merely adjusted their Social Contracts - each of the 13 Charters - to reflected the elimination of the King or Queen of England or its Dominions as a Party to the Contract. In other words, the "Liberals" converted our Monarchic Constitution into a Democratic-Republican one. But isn't it 'better" to call these "liberals," "radicals" instead?

Regarding the characterization of Alexander Hamilton as a Conservative in implicit opposition to Thomas Jefferson, because the latter drafted the Declaration of Independence, with its effective dramatic locution,"We hold these truths to be self evident,that all men are created equal" (with Benjamin Franklyn's editing), we must consider the former's assumption of the title as Publius in the authorship of "The Federalists." The term "Publius" takes one back to the days of Rome, Republican and Imperial. Jefferson wasn't one of the activists in the three (3) Federalist Papers,and he was a true Gentry, unlike urban Hamilton who subsequently championed our first central bank, the First Bank of the United States. Accordingly, Alexander Hamilton was not only not a Conservative, but he wasn't even a Liberal - he was a Radical Second Revolutionary, by which I mean the 1778-1789 [2nd] "Revolution." Instead of "amending" the Articles of Confederation (the 1st American Constitution), under the "Presidency" of George Washington, a literally "secret"meeting took place whereby the American Constitution was drafted by this Constitutional Convention. Once drafted, Alexander Hamilton solicited the services of James Madison and John Jay in the "revolutionary conspiracy" to write what later became known as the "Federalist Papers." It was these three Founding Fathers who effectively initiated the "Propaganda" campaign in support of the adoption of our new federal constitution (to replace the weak Articles) among the 13 American States (Soverign). In brief, Founding Father Alexander Hamilton, instead of being a Conservative was a Radical Left-Wing Revolutionary and arguably the Most Responsible for the current (several times amended since 1789) Constitution of the United States.

In summary, Conservatives are generally the ones who hold up the process of Progress in our US Constitution. There are now 27th Amendments; Conservatives generally opposed amendment, Liberals supported. And history being what it is, in hindsight, yesterday's Liberal is today's Conservative - because to be an American "Conservative" requires support of our Constitution. However, the Constitution evolves with Amendments. Most dramatically, in the cases of Slavery, Racism, and Sex. In the Past, Conservatives supported Slavery with claims of State's Rights. Subsequently, Conservatives supported Racism with claims of State's Rights. And the constitution had to be amended to stop Conservatives from demanding that an American Woman's Place is in the Kitchen,and not the Office (except as a secretary or stenographer). And Conservatives it was who maintained that Homosexuals are immoral or sick and must be criminalized or converted to "normalcy." Conservatives, William F. Buckley, infamously called Gore Vidal a "queer" on television and made every conceivable argument (without success) to deny Constitutional Rights to non-heterosexuals, and to deny them Due Process Rights, particularly under the 14th Amendments. And this kind of Discrimination continues by invoking the Bible as a part of the American Tradition.But its is a Constitutional fact that our Religious Liberty constitutional provision has Privatized our religious beliefs, and therefore the Bible may not even be thought of as part of the Establishment. Or are you a Conservative advocating for Establishments?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".