Years ago, H. L. Mencken exposed the fact that Lincoln, in his Gettysburg Address, used poetry as opposed to logic to reinvent these united States of America into a National Union from a Confederated Union. Lincoln, by the poetry as expressed in the Gettysburg hijacked these united States vision of itself and largely reinvented the country with that speech. As stated earlier, H.L. Mencken pointed this out in his own illimitable way,
“The Gettysburg speech was at once the shortest and the most famous oration in American history…the highest emotion reduced to a few poetical phrases. Lincoln himself never even remotely approached it. It is genuinely stupendous. But let us not forget that it is poetry, not logic; beauty, not sense. Think of the argument in it. Put it into the cold words of everyday. The doctrine is simply this: that the Union soldiers who died at Gettysburg sacrificed their lives to the cause of self-determination – that government of the people, by the people, for the people, should not perish from the earth. It is difficult to imagine anything more untrue. The Union soldiers in the battle actually fought against self-determination; it was the Confederates who fought for the right of their people to govern themselves.”
The reason I bring this up is I believe that Barack Obama was trying to do much the same thing in his 2013 Inauguration speech.
First, Obama has always tried to channel Lincoln. In point of fact Obama used Lincoln’s Bible (along with MLK’s) to take his oath of office. Could this be a indicator that Obama understands what Lincoln accomplished in changing America via his Gettysburg Address, and so aspired to do the same with his Inaugural address?
Second in his Inauguration Obama made more then one reference to the ability of America to reinvent itself. Early on in the Inaugural address Obama said,
“America’s possibilities are limitless, for we possess all the qualities that this world without boundaries demands: …. an endless capacity for risk and a gift for reinvention.”
Even earlier in his address Obama even refers how the Nation re-made itself in the context of the Lincoln Regime,
“Through blood drawn by lash and blood drawn by sword, we learned that no union founded on the principles of liberty and equality could survive half-slave and half-free. We made ourselves anew, and vowed to move forward together.”
Elsewhere we find,
“But we have always understood that when times change, so must we;”
When you combine these quotes it is clear that Obama’s intent is to remake America and my premise is that this Inauguration Address was to Obama what the Gettysberg was to Lincoln in the sense that both speeches, by way of poetry, glommed on to some honored American idea, only to twist it by poetry in a direction that contradicted the original intent of the Founders. For Lincoln, his appeal was to the the American time honored notion of self-determination in order to justify denying the South the opportunity of self-determination. Lincoln, by poetry, was able to justify his crushing of the South in the name of self-determination. Lincoln’s poetry, coloring his brutal use of the sword and the canon, remade the Nation and set it on a different trajectory from which it would never recover.
What Obama is appealing to, by way of poetry, is a twisted idea of equality in order to overturn liberty. In his Inaugural speech Obama returned to the theme of equality over and over again.
… ” what makes us American – is our allegiance to an idea, articulated in a declaration made more than two centuries ago:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
“We are true to our creed when a little girl born into the bleakest poverty knows that she has the same chance to succeed as anybody else, because she is an American, she is free, and she is equal, not just in the eyes of God but also in our own.”
“We, the people, declare today that the most evident of truths – that all of us are created equal – is the star that guides us still; just as it guided our forebears through Seneca Falls, and Selma, and Stonewall; just as it guided all those men and women, sung and unsung, who left footprints along this great Mall, to hear a preacher …”
“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated like anyone else under the law – for if we are truly created equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well….”
Obama’s constant appeal to the traditional American virtue of equality is being used to set the nation on a new trajectory that will overturn the original understanding of equality. It is obvious that the Founders did not believe in the kind of Jacobin equality for which Obama champions. Just the fact that the Founders allowed the individual states to determine who would have the franchise proves that they were not interested in the kind of Marxist equality for which Obama is advocating. The fact that the Founders crafted a document of negative rights where the Federal Government was restricted to very specific enumerated and delegated powers — powers that did not include forcing equality on the population and did allow the people to maintain their cherished liberty — suggest that the Founders “equality” is not the “equality” to which Obama constantly returned.
In Obama’s America, the phrase in the Declaration of Independence that mentions that “all men are created equal, is being used as a talisman in order to reinterpret America. The problem is that the US War for American Independence was not posited on the same premises of the French Revolution where equality as Egalitarianism was the leitmotif. America did not have the watch word of “Equality, Liberty, and Fraternity.” America did not mention “Equality” in her primary document (Constitution), or her Bill of Rights. America was not hung up about addressing everyone as “Citoyen,” (Citizen) in order to reveal a mad allegiance to equality as we find in the French Revolution was. America did not come up with a “Declaration of the Rights of Men,” and enshrine “Men are born and remain free and equal in rights” in its first point. America’s concern was Liberty not equality.
In the twentieth century, scholars like Hayek and Friedman maintain that equality is in conflict with and incompatible with liberty. They maintained that speaking of social justice in a society where individuals are free, any attempt to establish social justice or equality will deprive the people of their freedom because such an attempt requires government intervention to the end of denying liberty in pursuit of equality. A true notion of liberty understands that it includes the liberty to be different, and so unequal, due to the pursuit of individual interests. Obama’s version of “Equality” stands in contradiction to any vision of “Liberty” that isn’t Jacobin at its core. Obama’s equality is a demand for equality of outcome that always achieves a dull, ugly, drab sameness and the only way that can be achieved is by Obama taking away the liberty of American People.
Obama, in his Inauguration Speech is trying to deceptively change America much like Lincoln did at Gettysburg. If Obama is able to foist his vision of equality on America, by sentimentally appealing to the historic American notion of equality, he will succeed in changing the USA into the USSA.
According to Hayek, the original socialists were frankly authoritarian in their ideology, and were recognized by their opponents as enemies of liberty. It was not until later that socialism became identified with the struggle for “freedom”; only the type of freedom being spoken of by socialists is quite different from the liberal idea of political freedom. Freedom to the socialist is freedom from “necessity… of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice…” Hayek comments: “Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth.”
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” -Tocqueville
The language and ideas of the Declaration rely heavily on John Locke and Samuel Rutherford. As such, I would assume the reference to men being created equal is intended as a direct denial of the divine right of hereditary kings. I could be wrong…
Any idea why the Declaration has “pursuit of Happiness” instead of property?
C. THE MEANING OF THE “PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS”
The Declaration of Independence affirms that people are endowed with unalienable rights, including “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The language is distinguishable from the “life, liberty and property” wording usually attributed to John Locke. An examination of appropriate documents reveals a deliberate purpose for the specific wording of the Declaration. The intent was to select language which would not be considered redundant because the Lockean use of the word property included liberty. Also, the intent was to avoid standardizing eighteenth-century practices or concepts of property law, such as slavery. The intent was to select language which referred to a person’s general rights which include property, contract and other economic liberties consistent with the eternal laws of justice found in the laws of nature and of nature’s God.
The Magna Carta of 1215 served to influence American constitutional liberties.19 This document was the result of protests against the use of governmental power for tyrannical purposes. It affirmed that the rule of law limits the authority of men exercising governmental power. From this premise, the Magna Carta affirmed the principle that life, liberty and property must be protected. Sir Edward Coke supported this interpretation in his treatise concerning that document.20
The First Virginia Charter of 1606 stated that rights enjoyed by Englishmen, principally those of the Magna Carta, would be enjoyed by settlers of the new colonies in North America.21 This same general guarantee is found in the Charter of New England of 1620,22 the Charter of Massachusetts Bay of 1629,23 the Charter of Maryland of 1632,24 the Charter of Maine of 1639,25 the Charter of Connecticut of 1662,26 the Charter of Rhode Island of 1663,27 and the Charter of Carolina of 1663.28 So the colonies were initiated upon the principle that the rule of law protected inherent rights of life, liberty and property.
The Bill of Rights of 1689 was another major British document affirming fundamental rights and liberties of Englishmen.29 This document fostered further protections of life, liberty and property. The document obliged the British government to secure these rights of the colonists because they too were Englishmen. However, as noted previously, the rights of Englishmen were eventually violated by Parliament and the Crown.
John Locke published his Two Treatises of Government within a few years of the enactment of the Bill of Rights. The Second Treatise is the primary source for Locke’s arguments concerning life, liberty and property. He used several variations of the phrase: “Life, Health, Liberty, or Possessions”;30 “Life, Liberty, Health, Limb or Goods”;31 “Estate, Liberty, Limbs and Life”;32 “Lives, Liberties and Estates”;33 “Lives, Liberties, and Possessions”;34 and “Lives, Liberties, or Fortunes.”35 Locke did not use the phrase “life, liberty and property” in his second treatise. To do so would have been redundant. Locke repeatedly pointed out that by using the word property, he meant “that Property which Men have in their Persons as well as Goods.”36 He used “the general Name, Property” to refer to “Lives, Liberties and Estates.”37 Using the phrase “pursuit of Happiness,” the Declaration of Independence avoided the redundancy which occurred if the Lockean use of the word property was related to liberty.
Further insight into the “pursuit of Happiness” is available from Blackstone. Blackstone discussed the fundamental rights of Englishmen in light of the Magna Carta. The declaration of rights and liberties in the Magna Carta conformed to the natural liberties of all individuals.38 The natural liberties inherent within the individual were endowed by God at the person’s creation.39 Blackstone indicated that these rights were reducible to three primary articles: the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty and the right of private property.40
Blackstone indicated that the inherent right of personal security included the person’s “enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, his health, and his reputation.”41 This list may be summarized in the word “life.” Life is a gift from God and is therefore an inherent right.42
Blackstone addressed the subject of personal liberty as a God-given, inherent right. Blackstone argued that it consisted of the liberty to move about, at will, from place to place without fear of restraint or imprisonment without due process.43
According to Blackstone a third inherent right was the God-given gift of private property. The right “consists in the free use, enjoyment, and disposal of all [personal] acquisitions.”44 He also spoke of the “sacred and inviolable rights of private property.”45
Blackstone’s three-part expression was translated into the American legal tradition by the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress. The document affirmed the position that “the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts” were “entitled to life, liberty and property.”46 This language indicated reliance upon both the Magna Carta and the immutable laws of nature because the Magna Carta was a voidable act of man, while the laws of nature were permanent. The language indicated that the draftsmen did not rely upon the Lockean view of property as simply another way of saying life, liberty and estate. Rather, they relied upon Blackstone’s three-part division of God-given, inherent rights.
The meaning of the “pursuit of Happiness” is further revealed by the Bill of Rights to the Constitution of Virginia. Adopted June 12, 1776, roughly one month prior to the Declaration of Independence, a key provision states:
That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.47
This language reflected Blackstone’s three-part expression of inherent rights. Life, liberty and property were recognized as inherent rights of the individual and not originating with civil society. The property aspect was expanded to reflect just what sort of property rights were inherent. Apparently, the means of acquiring and possessing property generally were inherent rights. This does not imply that people have an inherent right to any specific item or amount of property. The language indicated that the means of pursuing and obtaining happiness were equally inherent rights. This may include such economic rights as contract and profession.
The language of the Virginia Bill of Rights was similar to that of the Declaration. The Declaration, however, relied upon the “pursuit of Happiness” rather than property. This word choice served the purpose of avoiding the Lockean redundancy and of encompassing in few words, more than rights in property. To understand the context of the phrase, recourse must again be made to Blackstone’s Commentaries.
Blackstone indicated that the Creator “has been pleased so to contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want no other prompter to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, but only our own self-love, that universal principle of action.”48 Blackstone clarified this by pointing out that the Creator
has so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things . . .; but has graciously reduced the rule of obedience to this one paternal precept, “that man should pursue his own true and substantial happiness.”49
An unalienable right to the “pursuit of Happiness” meant simply that every individual was created with the inherent right to live in accordance with the laws of eternal justice. The phrase also avoided redundancy by the use of the word “property.” It allowed recognition of more rights than that of property or the legal procedures for dealing with property. It also allowed for use of Blackstone’s own pretext test to determine whether property right “tends to man’s real happiness, and therefore justly concluding that . . . it is a part of the law of nature.”50 It may be concluded that the denial of property rights is “destructive of man’s real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids it.”51
The above interpretation of the “pursuit of Happiness” phrase was adopted by individual states. State constitutions drafted after the Declaration of Independence indicated a common understanding.
The Constitution of Pennsylvania of August 16, 1776, affirmed:
That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.52
The Delaware Declaration of Rights of September 11, 1776, indicated “[t]hat every member of society hath a right to be protected in the enjoyment of life, liberty and property.”53 Delaware chose to use Blackstone’s brief three-part expression of inherent rights.
The Constitution of Vermont of July 8, 1777, affirmed:
That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and unalienable rights, amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty: acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.54
The Constitution of Massachusetts of October 25, 1780, recognized:
All men are born free and equal, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights; among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness.55
A Justice of the United States Supreme Court, D. J. Brewer, referred to the Constitution of Massachusetts for his argument to protect private property.56 He informed Yale graduates:
Its last clauses simply define what is embraced in the phrase, – “the pursuit of happiness.” They equally affirm that sacredness of life, of liberty, and of property, are rights, – unalienable rights; anteceding human government, and its only sure foundation; given not by man to man, but granted by the Almighty to every one: something which he has by virtue of his manhood, which he may not surrender, and of which he cannot be deprived.57
The Constitution of New Hampshire of June 2, 1784, affirmed:
All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights; among which are – the enjoying and defending life and liberty – acquiring, possessing and protecting property – and in a word, of seeking and obtaining happiness.58
As the constitutions of Massachusetts and New Hampshire indicated, seeking and obtaining happiness was used as a shorthand reference to a host of unalienable rights, including property. The Framers paralleled the inherent right of property with the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. The “pursuit of Happiness” phrase of the Declaration referred to the right to use just means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and seeking, pursuing and obtaining happiness, but by using more abbreviated language. Judge Brewer affirmed this definition of the phrase:
When among the affirmations of the Declaration of Independence, it is asserted that the pursuit of happiness is one of the unalienable rights, it is meant that the acquisition, possession, and enjoyment of property are matters which human government cannot forbid, and which it cannot destroy . . . .59
Clearly, the “pursuit of Happiness” phrase carried a very specific meaning. Part of the problem involved when addressing the unalienability of property rights is that, historically, the specific meaning has not been carefully maintained or clearly articulated. In a certain, carefully defined context, property rights are alienable. In a more general sense, property rights are unalienable.
Obviously, property of various descriptions is bought and sold daily. When a person sells a piece of property, be it a house, a piece of land or a car, he is transferring his right to that item of property. He is alienating his property right to that item. He is alienating his right to that particular subject of property. He is not, however, alienating his right to own property.
Because of the ability to alienate one’s right to a particular subject of property, some writers have concluded that one’s general right to property is necessarily an alienable right.60 The misunderstanding is due to a failure to distinguish between the right to freely transfer or alienate particular items by use of the procedural means provided in law, and the inability to transfer the general right to acquire, possess or dispose of property. The unalienable right of property refers to that general right to acquire, possess or transfer property. That right cannot be denied without denying an inherent right that is indicative of one’s humanity. The general right to acquire, possess or transfer property is an unalienable right, derivative of the laws of nature and of nature’s God, and encompassed in the phrase the “pursuit of Happiness.”
Unalienable rights are general rights understood only in light of the laws of nature and of nature’s God. A person has an unalienable right to life in general. He does not have an unalienable right to a specific quality of life, or quantity of life. Likewise, a person has an unalienable right to liberty in general. He does not have an unalienable right to unlimited liberty without responsibility. Similarly, the unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness is a general statement. A person does not have an unalienable right to a particular degree of happiness, or particular kind of happiness. An unalienable right to property also must be understood in a general sense. A person does not have an unalienable right to a particular piece of property, or amount of property. The unalienable right of property refers to the general right to use means consistent with the laws of nature and of nature’s God in order to acquire, possess or transfer property. That right cannot be denied without denying an inherent aspect of a person’s humanity. The same is true of all unalienable rights.
According to the Declaration of Independence, the United States is established upon principles derived from the laws of nature and of nature’s God. Therefore, the civil government of the United States is obligated to secure the unalienable rights of the individual. The unalienable right to the pursuit of happiness includes the general right to property. This foundation must be embraced in order to secure property rights. To do this, it is necessary to demonstrate that although modern theorists have assumed that American property law is premised upon ancient feudalism, Americans consciously rejected feudalistic practices.
http://www.lonang.com/curriculum/2/s21b.htm#C
Thanks!