Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: What Did the Founders Mean By “Liberty”?

  1. #1
    Moderator Resist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Canadian
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Canada Canada
    State
    Ontario Ontario
    Gender
    Age
    50
    Family
    Married parent
    Politics
    Nationalist
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    294
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    126
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    350
    Thanked in
    184 Posts

    What Did the Founders Mean By “Liberty”?

    If there is a singular, inarguable principle that lies at the heart of America, it is liberty. The “Statue of Liberty” is perhaps our most iconic landmark, and the “Liberty Bell” in Philadelphia is one of our oldest national symbols. There are more High Schools called “Liberty High School” than seems reasonable. And of course, it is acknowledged in our founding document, which lists securing the “Blessings of Liberty” as the final intended goal of the new government.

    But like many words, “liberty” suffers from a plethora of definitions. It can be either an absence of something—i.e., the state of freedom from oppression, restrictions, or rules—or it can be the presence of something—i.e., the possession of “liberties,” often in the form of rights. The former is inherently subjective, while the latter is highly contextual, making the use of the word “liberty” a slippery business, particularly when it pertains to law and government.

    As perhaps could have been expected, the term has been seized by Libertarians and Liberals, who emphasize that liberty means nothing if not freedom for the individual. While intuitive to the modern ear, this understanding is neither the only possible understanding of “liberty,” nor is it what the Founding Fathers meant by the word.

    Consider, by way of explanation, one of the most favored quotes among American Patriots. Benjamin Franklin famously said that “[t]hose who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” This assertion is interpreted as an embodiment of the American attitude which puts liberty (presumably of the individual) above safety (presumably of the collective) in nearly absolute terms.

    The only problem is that in context, this famous quote means almost the exact opposite.

    The quote comes from a letter written in 1755 by Franklin as a representative of the Pennsylvania Assembly. The letter was addressed to the Governor, whose loyalty seemed torn between the people of Pennsylvania and the proprietary family (the descendants of William Penn), who in fact lived outside of the province but owned a great deal of land there. Recent conflicts with Natives during the French and Indian War required more military supplies and protection along the border regions, which in turn required raising taxes to fund these common defenses. The only problem was that the proposed method of raising these taxes would have taxed the Penn family’s lands. This is what is alluded to earlier in the letter when Franklin writes:

    Indeed all Bills for raising Money for Publick Use, are so far of the same Kind; but this differs greatly from every former Bill that has been offered him, and all the Amendments (of any Consequence) which he proposed to the Bill he last refused, are in this Bill admitted, save that for totally exempting the Proprietary Estate.

    The famous quote itself is preceded by an explanatory statement of the predicament the Pennsylvanians faced what they had done so far to protect themselves, and the limitations they would face in preceding further without the land-taxes they are requesting:

    In fine, we have the most sensible Concern for the poor distressed Inhabitants of the Frontiers. We have taken every Step in our Power, consistent with the just Rights of the Freemen of Pennsylvania, for their Relief, and we have Reason to believe, that in the Midst of their Distresses they themselves do not wish us to go farther. Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

    “Liberty” in this context refers to the freedom of the citizens to govern themselves and to pass laws as a collective. It is the freedom of the group, and not of the individual, which Franklin is appealing to. In fact, it appears that the freedom of the individual—the governor, that is—was the problem, as Benjamin Wittes of Lawfare and the Brookings Institute explains:

    What’s more the “purchase [of] a little temporary safety” of which Franklin complains was not the ceding of power to a government Leviathan in exchange for some promise of protection from external threat; for in Franklin’s letter, the word “purchase” does not appear to have been a metaphor. The governor was accusing the Assembly of stalling on appropriating money for frontier defense by insisting on including the Penn lands in its taxes–and thus triggering his intervention. And the Penn family later offered cash to fund defense of the frontier–as long as the Assembly would acknowledge that it lacked the power to tax the family’s lands. Franklin was thus complaining of the choice facing the legislature between being able to make funds available for frontier defense and maintaining its right of self-governance–and he was criticizing the governor for suggesting it should be willing to give up the latter to ensure the former.

    To summarize, the Pennsylvanians sought the “liberty” of self-governance through raising taxes on everyone via the provincial government. This conflicted with the “safety” of the proprietary family and the provincial governor representing the proprietary family’s interests.

    Of course, we can reach this conclusion about intended meaning of “liberty” through the Declaration of Independence itself, which cites as its very first complaints how the King of England has “refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good,” and has variously prevented the Colonists from being able to govern themselves. It would not be overstating things to say that the colonists were not complaining about an excess of government so much as they were complaining of a lack of effective government. This absence of government, not its oppressive presence, was the impediment to liberty and prosperity which our Founding Father fought a war to do away with.

    The Founding Fathers were not libertarian individualists. We know this from the fasces they adorned their buildings with, and we know this from their acknowledgment of differences between groups—something which leftists hold as evidence of racism at the very beginning of American history, but which also applies to distinctions between white groups. Benjamin Franklin himself, incidentally, held reservations about the Germans in particular:

    Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

    But most importantly, we know this from their statements about Liberty in our founding documents. Loving liberty does not require one to be an individualist, as an American or in general. To the contrary, the Founding Fathers understood that organizing around the collective interests of the group, rather than those of the individual, is the best way to achieve the most liberty.
    https://www.counter-currents.com/201...an-by-liberty/

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Last Online
    1 Day Ago @ 08:31 AM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Gender
    Religion
    Hitlerism
    Posts
    329
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    67
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    100
    Thanked in
    71 Posts
    I consider Counter-Currents to be a pseudo-intellectual site (the only Alt-Right oriented site I make an exception for is SemiticControversies, which used to feature articles examining anti-Semitism in both Christian and Pagan literature), but this one article has it's merits. It was George Washington who explained what they meant by liberty: "we do not include madmen or idiots." The Founding Fathers made it very clear that they deplored the present state of affairs (African slavery), but they did not wish to emancipate them until they had been properly instructed in the discipline of freedom. The Fathers rejected arbitrary freedom. It was perfectly defined for them.

    As Rousseau once explained, the Russians are inclined towards world hegemony as a result of Peter the Great's attempt to turn them into Germans or Englishmen, something they weren't meant to be.

    After the British evacuated India, the whole country descended into chaos, the result of the way the British had treated them.

    And above all, the Jews are the chief proof of what happens when a subjugated people are emancipated prematurely. They go haywire with power. President Truman's verdict on the Jewish people is unprecedented, no anti-Semite could have written that.

    "And what is it which this reason demands of him? The easiest thing in the world, – to live in accordance with his own nature." - Seneca

    "Nature has made a race of workers, the Chinese race, who have wonderful manual dexterity and almost no sense of honor... A race of tillers of the soil, the Negro; treat him with kindness and humanity, and all will be as it should; a race of masters and soldiers, the European race. Reduce this noble race to working in the ergastulum like Negroes and Chinese, and they rebel... But the life at which our workers rebel would make a Chinese or a fellah happy, as they are not military creatures in the least. Let each one do what he is made for, and all will be well." - Renan

  3. #3
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    American of German decent
    Ancestry
    Bavaria/Switzerland
    Country
    Other Other
    State
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Location
    Central
    Gender
    Age
    53
    Zodiac Sign
    Libra
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Kunstschmiede
    Politics
    Self-Reliance
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    4,573
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,794
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,310
    Thanked in
    608 Posts
    There will always be the personal liberties that are certain unalienable rights those can neither be denied by society or a government. I think the main idea of liberties the founding fathers were discussing was the idea of self government more than any other. Meaning that a people should govern themselves or their nations.
    Life is like a fire hydrant- sometimes you help people put out their fires, but most of the time you just get peed on by every dog in the neighborhood.

  4. #4
    Extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Primus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, September 13th, 2019 @ 10:25 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Albion.
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    New York New York
    Gender
    Age
    43
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    'anti-semite'
    Politics
    Republicanism, traditionalism, .
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    1,791
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    The Statue of Liberty is a monument to French masonry, i.e. the thing that inspired the French Revolution that overthrew the ancient French monarchy that could trace its lineage at least back to Charles the Great and his forebears like the Merovingians (and ultimately Germanic chieftains, Gallo-Roman nobles, etc.).

    Liberty in the American sense overwhelmingly comes from the English traditions, be they rooted in Christianity or the older values of the heathen forefathers. Anglo-Saxons (including Anglo-Americans) are not Germans and Germans are not Anglo-Saxons, though we have a shared ancestry from of old.
    'Militia est vita hominis super terram [The life of man upon earth is a warfare] (Job 7:1).'

Similar Threads

  1. Tribal Founders and Their Placenames!
    By Rodskarl Dubhgall in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: Sunday, June 3rd, 2018, 10:07 PM
  2. What the Founders *Really* Thought About Race
    By Hersir in forum The United States
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, August 26th, 2016, 01:17 AM
  3. Some of the Founders of Odinism in the Anglosphere
    By Ćlfhere in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, November 9th, 2006, 07:15 PM
  4. Classify the Founders of the reign of Italy
    By Huzar in forum Anthropological Taxonomy
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: Saturday, September 17th, 2005, 07:20 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •