Sometimes it is very, very difficult to tap that “heart” emoji. I do not love to read what is so horrifying and real. But I love that you are writing it with such clarity and truth and intelligence. Thank you, with all my heart.
Sometimes it is very, very difficult to tap that “heart” emoji. I do not love to read what is so horrifying and real. But I love that you are writing it with such clarity and truth and intelligence. Thank you, with all my heart.
Heather Cox Richardson's summary of the ante-bellum southern perversion of the meaning of our Founding documents does not mention their primary philosopher of slavery: John Locke.
For the past hundred years, and especially since the 1950s, this perverted Lockean understanding of the Declaration of Independence has maintained an uneasy hegemony over the minds of academic scholars.
Then, 15 years ago, I went to graduate school and stumbled across the 1776 congressional definition of "happiness" (in the original May 1776 Independence resolution), instantly demolishing the bogus Lockean argument, because this congressional definition of happiness includes "virtue" (rooted in benevolence -- active concern for the well-being of our fellow humans), and Locke -- a beneficiary of the slave trade who wrote South Carolina's very first slave constitution -- was unique in taking virtue OUT of his definition of happiness.
See " The Declaration of Independence without Locke: A Rebuttal of Michael Zuckert’s "The Natural Rights Republic," at
I read your twitter linked article. Brilliant writing , and, as a long time student and fan of John Adams was not surpised to see that John Adams led the effort to insure that government worked for the "happiness" of the people.
Indeed, John Adams gets neglected. He was "Mr. Independence" in Congress, which is why he deserved a turn as President.
And as President, perhaps his finest moment was his policy of "peace through strength" against France, first building the U.S. Navy to give the imperious French a bloody nose, and then sacrificing his chances for a second term as President to pursue a peace treaty with France, in opposition to the Federalist "war hawks" including Alexander Hamilton.
John Spot on! John Adams was ‘resurrected’ by my friend and classmate David McCullough in his Pulitzer-winning JOHN ADAMS. He did clearly jeopardize his re-election by putting country over self in avoiding war with France. His re-election campaign was badly damaged by Alexander Hamilton’s 78-page diatribe against Adams, which well may have cost him New York and re-election.
David told me that initially he commenced researching a book on the letters exchanged by ex-presidents Adams and Jefferson. When he found Jefferson to be extremely hypocritical, he switched to his John and Abigail blockbuster.
As president, Jefferson insisted on building little river gunboats that were called ‘Jeff’s,’ which proved totally ineffective in the War of 1812. I recall, many years ago, discovering the hypocrisy of Jefferson in Joseph Ellis’s book AMERICAN SPHINX. By contrast, Adams was dour, stubborn, and, in key moments, absolutely brilliant in shaping our country.
P. S. There was no love lost between Adams and Jefferson. On Jefferson’s inauguration, Adams left Washington at 3:30 a. M., stating that there was no convenient later stage coach to get him back to Boston. I believe that he and Trump were the only living presidents who skipped the inauguration of their successors.
However, I have also read the predecessor to David, Catherine Drinker Bowen's John Adams biography and her bio and picture of Adams are truly spectacular. McCollough must have read her as well because he takes up where she left off.
But, Adams early development, life and education is absolutely fascinating in Bowen's Biography.
Sadly, libraries are getting rid of her stuff but keeping McCollough's stuff. I just had my own local library re-acquire her Biography and place it in the teen section. Every teen should read it, especially the girls.
Bowen was a historian long before women were even hired at University. She wrote the book out of pure passion.
I've been inclined to think of Jefferson as a trimmer, never publicly out of step with the collective view of the Virginia aristocracy.
In all fairness, Adams and Jefferson patched things up late in life (as witnessed by Adams' last words on July 4), but in their correspondence, sometimes Jefferson's lack of candor is hard to miss.
Adams is the reason the United States of America exists today. Simple as that. Without him, things would have gone off the rails.
He was the person who nominated, then, worked mightily to get George Washington the supreme commander of the Continental Army, despite the more powerful Hancock wanting the job.
Adams picked the perfect person for that job.......and the rest is history.
Adams was convinced that a southern was imperative as commander of the Continental Army (Washington appeared at the Continental Congress in his military uniform). Virginia was the largest American colony. John Hancock, the biggest smuggler in the colonies, was appalled that Adams supported Washington. Without General Washington, the colonies would not have defeated the British.
Thank you - I'm so excited to read this in depth (post holiday preparations and celebrations!) I am now following you on Twitter. And I'll retweet your article as soon as I can make a clear statement of why I'm doing that. I think you are going to be a very important part of my better-late-than-never understanding of this country of my birth. Blessings,
There was so much that I left out... In the mind of Francis Hutcheson, the pathway to happiness was to obey the two great commandments of Jesus Christ, but Hutcheson never phrased it like that.
For Cicero, going beyond Aristotle, we are all created equal in that we have a natural capacity to become habitually virtuous (with benevolence at the heart of the preeminent virtue of justice), and that is the source of happiness -- but the meaning of the word has shifted. Where the Founders said "happiness," today we would say "well being."
The edification of "happiness," and the comments above I actually feel uplifted and think there just might be potential for democracy to live on. Thank you Mr. Schmmckle, I just followed you on Twitter and am anxious to go there and read more.
Thanks, the natural law really is a beautiful vision of human potential, but we must organize our society correctly to cultivate the individual's innate potential.
Article 5, Section 2 of the Massachusetts Constitution presents some thoughts in that direction:
Thank you John. If I understand your research, (a big if) the key "starting points" are the May 1776 Resolution, further June 1776 steps in Virginia before the July 1776 founding documents partly in reaction to King George's 1775 destruction of his royal "contract" with his colonial subjects? [ With deep roots in the Age of Reason.]
I will read your work more carefully, but thank you for the penetrating analysis.
More or less. The "original contract" (allegiance in exchange for protection) is referenced as a natural-law principle in Sir Edward Coke's all-important report on Calvin's Case (1609). (The eminent legal historian John Phillip Reid discusses the Original Contract, without mentioning natural law, in his Constitutional History of the American Revolution.)
The Original Contract is reaffirmed when every monarch takes their coronation oath.
In October 1775 King George, citing his concern for the "safety and happiness" of all his subjects, formally placed the rebellious colonists out of his protection, formally breaking the Original Contract, which was cited in the May independence resolution (with "reason and good conscience" as the formally correct natural law authorities) for the colonies to "totally suppress" royal authority, and this independence resolution defined safety ("protection of lives, liberties and property") and happiness ("internal peace, virtue and good order").
This was the moment of independence, according to both John Adams and Gordon S. Wood.
Our national birthday is actually May 15, but it appears that Adams and Jefferson colluded to create a myth of July 4.
I suppose my research, with smoking-gun evidence, could be considered the "tip of the spear" in an emerging academic paradigm shift. Right now the Old Guard is resisting.
Persist and persevere - their resistance will strengthen the will to transcend self indulgent ignorance - thank you so much for doing and sharing your research, John!!
John. My recollection is that Jefferson must have had John Locke in mind when, in the Declaration of Independence, he wrote “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Locke, nearly a century earlier had written “Life, Liberty, and estate (property).”
Yes, that's part of the established Lockean explanation, which only makes sense if we conflate property with "pursuit of happiness" and ignore the congressional definition of happiness, in favor of Locke's definition as the utmost pleasure of which we are capable.
The Continental Congress defined happiness as "internal peace, virtue and good order" side-by-side with its definition of safety (not happiness) in terms of life, liberty and property. (Life, liberty and property goes back to Magna Carta.)
The doctrine of "safety and happiness" as the standard for governmental legitimacy goes back to Cicero's De legibus, as I discussed in my article on the original May 1776 independence resolution, here:
It follows from today’s message that the electoral college and the U.S. Senate composition are anti-democratic institutions and vestiges of a state’s rights past as superior to democratic federalism. America must ultimately make a choice between being a federalist democracy where governing philosophy and principles are decided by a one person, one vote with all represented equally and fairly or we will choose a confederacy of States system with a weak central government and each state free to legislate and govern as they wish. We can be one United States of America or we can be each state for themselves. We cannot long survive as a divided nation. Lincoln, one of the founders of the Republican party understood this and made a choice for federalism. The modern Republican party seems bent on redefining itself as the new confederacy party.
MaryOMary: a way to reactivate the "heart"-try going to the top of the page then look to the left of the search bar. You'll see an incomplete circle w/ an arrow @ the end. Click on that. The action refreshes the page. You should be able to get the"heart" to turn red. Occasionally it might take a couple tries. I hope this helps.
Sometimes it is very, very difficult to tap that “heart” emoji. I do not love to read what is so horrifying and real. But I love that you are writing it with such clarity and truth and intelligence. Thank you, with all my heart.
Heather Cox Richardson's summary of the ante-bellum southern perversion of the meaning of our Founding documents does not mention their primary philosopher of slavery: John Locke.
For the past hundred years, and especially since the 1950s, this perverted Lockean understanding of the Declaration of Independence has maintained an uneasy hegemony over the minds of academic scholars.
Then, 15 years ago, I went to graduate school and stumbled across the 1776 congressional definition of "happiness" (in the original May 1776 Independence resolution), instantly demolishing the bogus Lockean argument, because this congressional definition of happiness includes "virtue" (rooted in benevolence -- active concern for the well-being of our fellow humans), and Locke -- a beneficiary of the slave trade who wrote South Carolina's very first slave constitution -- was unique in taking virtue OUT of his definition of happiness.
See " The Declaration of Independence without Locke: A Rebuttal of Michael Zuckert’s "The Natural Rights Republic," at
https://independent.academia.edu/JohnSchmeeckle
I summarized my research on this Twitter thread:
https://twitter.com/john_schmeeckle/status/1497950349549879302
John,
I read your twitter linked article. Brilliant writing , and, as a long time student and fan of John Adams was not surpised to see that John Adams led the effort to insure that government worked for the "happiness" of the people.
Absolutely great writing Mr. Shmeeckle!!
Indeed, John Adams gets neglected. He was "Mr. Independence" in Congress, which is why he deserved a turn as President.
And as President, perhaps his finest moment was his policy of "peace through strength" against France, first building the U.S. Navy to give the imperious French a bloody nose, and then sacrificing his chances for a second term as President to pursue a peace treaty with France, in opposition to the Federalist "war hawks" including Alexander Hamilton.
John Spot on! John Adams was ‘resurrected’ by my friend and classmate David McCullough in his Pulitzer-winning JOHN ADAMS. He did clearly jeopardize his re-election by putting country over self in avoiding war with France. His re-election campaign was badly damaged by Alexander Hamilton’s 78-page diatribe against Adams, which well may have cost him New York and re-election.
David told me that initially he commenced researching a book on the letters exchanged by ex-presidents Adams and Jefferson. When he found Jefferson to be extremely hypocritical, he switched to his John and Abigail blockbuster.
As president, Jefferson insisted on building little river gunboats that were called ‘Jeff’s,’ which proved totally ineffective in the War of 1812. I recall, many years ago, discovering the hypocrisy of Jefferson in Joseph Ellis’s book AMERICAN SPHINX. By contrast, Adams was dour, stubborn, and, in key moments, absolutely brilliant in shaping our country.
P. S. There was no love lost between Adams and Jefferson. On Jefferson’s inauguration, Adams left Washington at 3:30 a. M., stating that there was no convenient later stage coach to get him back to Boston. I believe that he and Trump were the only living presidents who skipped the inauguration of their successors.
Keith, I have read David's good biography.
However, I have also read the predecessor to David, Catherine Drinker Bowen's John Adams biography and her bio and picture of Adams are truly spectacular. McCollough must have read her as well because he takes up where she left off.
But, Adams early development, life and education is absolutely fascinating in Bowen's Biography.
Sadly, libraries are getting rid of her stuff but keeping McCollough's stuff. I just had my own local library re-acquire her Biography and place it in the teen section. Every teen should read it, especially the girls.
Bowen was a historian long before women were even hired at University. She wrote the book out of pure passion.
I've been inclined to think of Jefferson as a trimmer, never publicly out of step with the collective view of the Virginia aristocracy.
In all fairness, Adams and Jefferson patched things up late in life (as witnessed by Adams' last words on July 4), but in their correspondence, sometimes Jefferson's lack of candor is hard to miss.
Adams is the reason the United States of America exists today. Simple as that. Without him, things would have gone off the rails.
He was the person who nominated, then, worked mightily to get George Washington the supreme commander of the Continental Army, despite the more powerful Hancock wanting the job.
Adams picked the perfect person for that job.......and the rest is history.
Adams was convinced that a southern was imperative as commander of the Continental Army (Washington appeared at the Continental Congress in his military uniform). Virginia was the largest American colony. John Hancock, the biggest smuggler in the colonies, was appalled that Adams supported Washington. Without General Washington, the colonies would not have defeated the British.
John - I read your abbreviated piece. This is very interesting indeed! Thank you.
Thank you - I'm so excited to read this in depth (post holiday preparations and celebrations!) I am now following you on Twitter. And I'll retweet your article as soon as I can make a clear statement of why I'm doing that. I think you are going to be a very important part of my better-late-than-never understanding of this country of my birth. Blessings,
There was so much that I left out... In the mind of Francis Hutcheson, the pathway to happiness was to obey the two great commandments of Jesus Christ, but Hutcheson never phrased it like that.
For Cicero, going beyond Aristotle, we are all created equal in that we have a natural capacity to become habitually virtuous (with benevolence at the heart of the preeminent virtue of justice), and that is the source of happiness -- but the meaning of the word has shifted. Where the Founders said "happiness," today we would say "well being."
The edification of "happiness," and the comments above I actually feel uplifted and think there just might be potential for democracy to live on. Thank you Mr. Schmmckle, I just followed you on Twitter and am anxious to go there and read more.
Thanks, the natural law really is a beautiful vision of human potential, but we must organize our society correctly to cultivate the individual's innate potential.
Article 5, Section 2 of the Massachusetts Constitution presents some thoughts in that direction:
https://ballotpedia.org/Chapter_5,_Massachusetts_Constitution#:~:text=Wisdom%2C%20and%20knowledge%2C%20as%20well,different%20orders%20of%20the%20people%2C
Thanks for the link for Ballotpedia
Thank you John. If I understand your research, (a big if) the key "starting points" are the May 1776 Resolution, further June 1776 steps in Virginia before the July 1776 founding documents partly in reaction to King George's 1775 destruction of his royal "contract" with his colonial subjects? [ With deep roots in the Age of Reason.]
I will read your work more carefully, but thank you for the penetrating analysis.
More or less. The "original contract" (allegiance in exchange for protection) is referenced as a natural-law principle in Sir Edward Coke's all-important report on Calvin's Case (1609). (The eminent legal historian John Phillip Reid discusses the Original Contract, without mentioning natural law, in his Constitutional History of the American Revolution.)
The Original Contract is reaffirmed when every monarch takes their coronation oath.
In October 1775 King George, citing his concern for the "safety and happiness" of all his subjects, formally placed the rebellious colonists out of his protection, formally breaking the Original Contract, which was cited in the May independence resolution (with "reason and good conscience" as the formally correct natural law authorities) for the colonies to "totally suppress" royal authority, and this independence resolution defined safety ("protection of lives, liberties and property") and happiness ("internal peace, virtue and good order").
This was the moment of independence, according to both John Adams and Gordon S. Wood.
Our national birthday is actually May 15, but it appears that Adams and Jefferson colluded to create a myth of July 4.
Excellent post, John. The old Locke/Hobbes debate which offers different views of man in nature couldn't be more fascinating today.
Learned a. lot reading this, John.
😯😮😲😮😯 Thank you John. Is this enforceable?
I suppose my research, with smoking-gun evidence, could be considered the "tip of the spear" in an emerging academic paradigm shift. Right now the Old Guard is resisting.
Persist and persevere - their resistance will strengthen the will to transcend self indulgent ignorance - thank you so much for doing and sharing your research, John!!
John. My recollection is that Jefferson must have had John Locke in mind when, in the Declaration of Independence, he wrote “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Locke, nearly a century earlier had written “Life, Liberty, and estate (property).”
Yes, that's part of the established Lockean explanation, which only makes sense if we conflate property with "pursuit of happiness" and ignore the congressional definition of happiness, in favor of Locke's definition as the utmost pleasure of which we are capable.
The Continental Congress defined happiness as "internal peace, virtue and good order" side-by-side with its definition of safety (not happiness) in terms of life, liberty and property. (Life, liberty and property goes back to Magna Carta.)
The doctrine of "safety and happiness" as the standard for governmental legitimacy goes back to Cicero's De legibus, as I discussed in my article on the original May 1776 independence resolution, here:
https://www.academia.edu/resource/work/1479704
It follows from today’s message that the electoral college and the U.S. Senate composition are anti-democratic institutions and vestiges of a state’s rights past as superior to democratic federalism. America must ultimately make a choice between being a federalist democracy where governing philosophy and principles are decided by a one person, one vote with all represented equally and fairly or we will choose a confederacy of States system with a weak central government and each state free to legislate and govern as they wish. We can be one United States of America or we can be each state for themselves. We cannot long survive as a divided nation. Lincoln, one of the founders of the Republican party understood this and made a choice for federalism. The modern Republican party seems bent on redefining itself as the new confederacy party.
Tragic...
...and let's not forget that SCOTUS has been ignoring the Constitution's Federal Supremacy clause in favor of states' rights.
MaryOMary: a way to reactivate the "heart"-try going to the top of the page then look to the left of the search bar. You'll see an incomplete circle w/ an arrow @ the end. Click on that. The action refreshes the page. You should be able to get the"heart" to turn red. Occasionally it might take a couple tries. I hope this helps.