The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

The Foundation of the Rights of the Common Man

Where did the ideals of freedom, liberty, equality, and justice for all, as we now understand them come from? What about the ideas of representative government, due process, the rule of law, property, and contracts? These rights of the common man are fairly new in mankind’s history. There is no doubt that many of these ideas came from the Hebrew Bible, but they were only instituted in ancient Israel which was destroyed by the Roman Empire. Indeed, this is true as King Alfred the Great of England started by studying Levitical law, extracting core principles for English laws. Thus evolved Anglo common law. The Greeks also thought about these ideas and only implemented them in a limited manner. And the Greek civilization collapsed with the rise of the Roman Empire. The rest of the world live under rulers who forcibly subjugated their citizens. The law, such as it was, was subservient to the will of the rulers and the common man was treated as chattel.

If you would ask a knowledgeable person this question they would respond that it was Western Civilization (Europe) that was responsible for the development of these ideals. But was it actually “Western Civilization” that was responsible? At the time of the Roman Empire Europe was divided into two parts; the Roman Empire and the Northern Territories that were occupied by the Celts, Gaelic, Gaul’s, Huns, Picts, Saxons, Teutons, and other German tribes at various places and times in the Northern Territories. The Romans referred to them as barbarians, perhaps barbaric in the lifestyle they lived but more advanced in their social structures that the Romans credited them for. The Roman Empire was one of rulers (Emperors) that imposed their will on their citizens. They had law, but the law was for only Roman citizens and could be contravened by the Emperor. Non-Romans had very little rights under the Roman Empire. The Northern Territories, however, had a different approach to governing and different sociological structures.[i]

The Northern Territories had an extended family, clan, or tribal form of governance. Their leaders were Chiefs and not Kings nor Princes. On the occasions of war, the Chiefs would elect a “King” who would be responsible for the conduct of the war. But the Kingship would dissolve at the end of the war. Their Chiefs were chosen by the people, and the people expected that their Chiefs bore a responsibility to the people and that the people were expected to be supportive of the Chiefs that properly exercised this responsibility. The responsibilities of the Chiefs were to protect the common man from their outside enemies and each other’s criminal acts, treat the common man with respect in their person and property, and to enforce and obey the same laws as the common man. This is where the ideals of common man rights spring from.

With the fall of the Roman Empire, this all changed. In their lust for territory, power, and riches the Chiefs became rulers – Kings and Princes. Some of the families, clans, and tribes who did not acquiesce migrated to the British Isles where they could continue their form of governance and society. Protected by the waters surrounding the Isles they flourished and expanded their ideas of the rights of the common man. It was only with the invasion of William the Conqueror of Normandy in 1066 that monarchical rule was established in England. And it was an oppressive monarchy, but the English people did not give up their ideals of common man rights but resisted monocratic rule. The next several centuries were the story of this resistance and the gradual reimplementation of the rights of the common man in England. The conflict between the Royalist (Toryism) and the Common Man (Whiggism) was the story of the development of the Rights of the Common Man as we now know them. Across the other parts of Europe Royalism reigned supreme.

This story is best told in the book Inventing Freedom: How the English-Speaking Peoples Made the Modern World by Daniel Hannan.

Whiggism (in North America sometimes spelled Whigism) is a political philosophy that grew out of the Parliamentarian faction in the English Civil War (1642–1651). The Whigs' key policy positions were the supremacy of Parliament (as opposed to that of the king), tolerance of Protestant dissenters and opposition to a "Papist" (Roman Catholic) on the throne, especially James II or one of his descendants.

Toryism is a political philosophy based on the supremacy of social order as it has evolved in the English culture after William the Conqueror (1066). The Tory ethos has been summed up with the phrase "God, Queen, and Country". Tories generally advocate monarchism and the “Divine Rights of Kings” to do as they will, and they were historically of a high church Anglican religious heritage, as opposed to the Parliamentarian and Protestantism of the Whig faction.

Toryism believed that political power was in the order of "God, Kingship, and Government", while Whiggism believed the order of political power was “God, Individual, and Government”, with Parliament being the forefront of government.

Most of the American colonies were populated by Whigs or sympathizers of the Whig political philosophy. When they rebelled, they were rebelling against the effectuation of Toryism on their Whiggish governmental structures. And our Founding Fathers were very much aware of this effectuation, as it was the main point of contention between the Colonies and England. Indeed, the Declaration of Independence section “Facts be submitted to a candid world” is a statement of Whiggish principles. When the Revolutionary War came upon them it was mostly the Whigs that supported the war, while the Tories supported the King. After the war, many of the Tories migrated to other English lands (mostly Canada) that were supportive of Toryism. Also, many Whigs in England were supportive of the ideals of the American Revolution but did not wish them to separate from England. It was George III and his Toryist supporters in Government and Parliament who promoted and perpetuated the suppression of the American Colonies Whiggish mentality that led to the American Revolutionary War.

In the book “The Cousins' War”, by Kevin Phillips, he advocates that the English Civil War, The American Revolutionary War, and the American Civil War were all spasms of this conflict between Whiggism and Toryism political philosophy. The American North was Whiggish, while the American South was Toryistic in their approach to governance. Indeed, the Republican Party sprang from the ashes of the Whig Party, while the Democrat Party evolved from the roots of Toryism that predominated in the south.

And these Whiggish and Toryistic predilections remains with us today but in a different conceptualization. Modern-day American Toryism has morphed into “Government, Identities, and Secularism” while modern-day Whiggism is still “God, Individualism, and Government”. Today we call the Tories Liberals/Progressives/Leftists while the Whigs are called Moderates/Conservatives. And this best illustrates the schisms between the Democrats (Toryistic) and the Republicans (Whiggish) political philosophies. This can also be seen in the European Union today as Britain retains its Whiggish approach to governance while the rest of the European Union countries have a Toryistic approach to governance. In my opinion, this is what led to Brexit.

As in the past, this schism is dividing America into polarized camps. A polarization in which one side or the other needs to prevail in order to resolve the future direction of American governance. I, myself, am in the camp of Whiggism, as I believe that this is the only course to retain the rights of the common man. Rights that are not an endowment by the government but a natural endowment of our being sentient and conscience persons.

 _____________________________________|
[i] This is a very concise, and somewhat inaccurate history of the Northern Territories. It is not possible to do justice to this history in this short article, and I would not be the proper person to do it justice. The only point I wish to make is that the Northern Territories tribes were different in their governmental and sociological structures than the Roman Empire.