Our Founding Fathers

The American Declaration of Independence is seen as a great victory for Democracy and liberty, a Republican and Anti-royalist document denouncing any and all forms of monarchy and Kingship. But is that assumption a fair one or is there more to it? We argue of course that there is far more to it than that and indeed that assumption only exists because the King is the obvious focus of the document. Firstly, not only was King George III not the tyrannical caricature the American propogandists made him out to be, but also the declaration itself as a political and constitutional document is very telling in regards to what our founding fathers believed about government.

Looking closer at the wording of the Declaration and the resulting story becomes rather surprising.

The word “Parliament” doesn’t even appear once in the declaration, but the word “King” does, even though by this point in history parliament had become indispensable in English government and its authority would only continue to grow in succeeding decades and centuries. In a legalistic sense the document itself is claiming that it is only the King from whom independence needs to be declared and it is only the King who wields any legitimate authority over the then colonies. So as far as the Founding fathers were concerned parliament was insignificant to their aims and need not be addressed at all. Reading point 13 of the Declaration (points 14 – 22 are subscripts of point 13):

“He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:”

The “others” being described here are the Lords and Commons in Parliament. The King only acts tyrannically in this sense because he gave his Assent to “their Acts of pretended Legislation” rather than refusing assent or in other words vetoing them, even the phrase “pretended legislation” you can tell is written with a great degree of intended distain to exude from the page as though to say, “You have absolutely no authority over us and never did”. But in Britain at this time, there is no such thing as the King outside of Parliament, and to a greater or lesser degree the King was between a rock and a hard place in the battle between the Atlantic Empire and Parliament. The veto itself had also not been used by a monarch in Britain since Queen Anne I at the beginning of the century, she was also the last Monarch to formally summon her councilors without controversy. So here, the declaration is pointing out a flaw in the Imperial government and constitution, that the crown has become too weak and should have revived its rightful prerogatives, or the veto in this case.

Looking again to the Declaration:

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.”

Unpacking yet further; “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” The founders do not say that Monarchy is by nature tyrannical or that one cannot find freedom or liberty under the rule of a Prince (Monarch), what they are saying is that this Prince, King George III, has behaved towards them as a tyrant would and so is not worthy to be their sovereign, and the declaration is used to justify that charge.

“We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.” Here they further define not only the language preceding in the document but the previous point mentioning the King. The Parliament is defined by our founders as “their legislature”, the legislature only for their British cousins and nothing more; elsewhere in the Empire Parliament was the supreme legislature, the Americans never regarded it as such. And indeed, they regarded Parliamentary authority over America as a usurpation of legitimate authority, the Kings authority, and that it was an illegal notion and act that Parliament should assume that role. How they squared that circle before the Revolution was returning to earlier political theory and claiming they were only subjects of the Empire through the person and prerogative of the King, and that the King governed (or rather should govern) the colonies in cooperation with the colonial assemblies. But this was not to be, and the war was a rebellion primarily against a tyrannical and illegal legislature, not the King.

“The Rebels have raised the [royal] Standard in Cambridge, and they call themselves the Kings Troops and us they call the Parliaments. Pretty Burlesque!” – Lieutenant John Barker, 4th (British) Regiment of Foot. May 1st, 1775

Such points of view can be found in the writings of Alexander Hamilton in his The Farmer Refuted, John Adams Defense of the Constitutions of the United States, even in private letters and public papers and pamphlets of Founders including James Wilson, James Iredell, Benjamin Rush, etc. Reading the Notes from the convention of 1787 we can see what the members talked about and debated there as well; chief amongst them were the powers and position of the presidency. And much like their earlier thought and insistence before the revolution that the Executive should not be severely weak nor subject to the legislature; they created a single chief executive, armed with a veto, the power of appointment to executive offices, commander-in-chief, clemency/pardon, appointment to the supreme court and other federal justices, etc. A far more powerful figure than King George III was, or any English Monarch ever would be since.