I haven't had time to write today, so maybe I can substitute some recommended reading. I recycled this from my blog since I think many of the readers here will appreciate the subject matter.
One of the most under appreciated influences on the Founding Fathers is Cato's Letters, a series of 144 essays on liberty written by the English Whigs John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon under the pen name "Cato" (which they chose because of Cato the Younger's defense of republican values against Julius Ceasar) between 1720 and 1723. One reading the letters for the first time will find that the Founders seemed to have borrowed directly from the pages of Cato.
The letters are a reminder of what the press could be, and what the power of the press is and should be. Not only did Trenchard and Gordon help disseminate the political philosophy of John Locke, helping to lay the philosophical foundations for our democratic freedoms, but they also helped play an important role in the history of winning the freedom of the press. Kovatch and Rosenthal write, in The Elements of Journalism, that they:
The authors go on to note that in 1735, when colonist John Zengler was put on trial for printing criticism of the royal governor of New York, his lawyer defended him citing Cato's reasoning (see #32, "Reflections on Libelling"). He was subsequently aquitted by a jury. Also interesting to note, Zengler's attorney was paid in part by Benjamin Franklin, who had himself previously published Cato's letters.
introduced the idea that truth should be a defense against libel. At the time, English common law had ruled the reverse: not only that any criticism of government was a crime, but that "the greater the truth, the greater the libel," since truth did more harm.
If we seek to educate Americans on their democratic traditions so that they will be more likely to guard jealously against encroachments of power, then I can think of no better place to start than with Cato's Letter #33, "Cautions against the Natural Encroachment of Power" which could well serve as an op-ed today as it did when it was written in 1721. I quote from the conclusion.
Power, without control, appertains to God alone; and no man ought to be trusted with what no man is equal to. In truth there are so many passions, and inconsistencies, and so much selfishness, belonging to human nature, that we can scarce be too much upon our guard against each other. The only security which we can have that men will be honest, is to make it their interest to be honest; and the best defence which we can have against their being knaves, is to make it terrible to them to be knaves. As there are many men wicked in some stations, who would be innocent in others; the best way is to make wickedness unsafe in any station.
Thank you for introducing me to these writings.
ReplyDeleteI posted to another subject on this blog when one asked what can we do, suggesting that one of the things we need to do in this nation is take back our schools and make them the servent of the people and not just the machine of corp America for creating a particular type of labor.
Our schools are to be the means by which we create citizens who can function within a democracy. Without understanding the basic concepts and the reasons behind the language in our constitution, we get what we have today; a gulible populace.
We as a society need to understand that there are "teachings" that go along with the constitution. It is a document of intention. Intention is the core of one's actions. To be taught to just read it, memorize it, is missing the intention. Those teachings are a philosophy about how to live life. If people are not taught such, then why are we dismayed when they choose to subplant such with their religious teachings?
Where else, what other means is there for a society to teach its citizens about society's intention other than our schools? What have we been teaching in our schools about the intention contained within the constitution? Nothing. We teach the rules only. But rules do not make for a life of intention. You can not write enough rules such that responsibility, honesty etc are assured. You can only assure such if you have taught a core intention. Bush et al and what appears to by hypocracy in their actions, can be easily understood by reading their intention of life.
That I got through high school in '75, college with a professional degree and had not heard of these writings is suggestive of why we have a problem beyond the money they represent in a capitolistic media environment, with Coulter types.
In short: Go to school get a job has not served us well. It is a very narrow intention as a position on life.
I'd never heard of them either, until I saw them discussed in The Elements of Journalism, which is another must read.
ReplyDeletePaul,
Yep. In Explaining America, Wills talked a great deal about the belief of Hamilton and Madison that both ambition and avarice could be channeled into effective public service.
This bit of history is near and dear to my heart, not the least because one of my ancestors faced a similar crisis. His name was John Miller, and he published a newspaper called The Advertiser in the 1770s in which he documented corruption in the court of George III and was hauled up on criminal libel charges.
ReplyDeleteHis lawyers, brilliantly, argued that the jury should judge not only the factual question of whether Miller had printed the material in question but also the question of law: Was the material libelous? Previously, juries had been asked to rule only on the former matter.
The court agreed that the jury should decide both questions, whereupon the crown's attorney, or prosecutor, dropped the changes, saying that no jury in Britain would vote to convict.
Miller, not looking a gift horse in the mouth, caught the next boat to America, where he founded a newspaper in Charleston before moving to upstate South Carolina and doing the same. He is buried in a churchyard in Travelers Rest, near what is now Clemson University.
Several of his descendants followed him into journalism; at least two, myself and a second cousin, are still at it today here in North Carolina.
Cato's Letters were very well known to the early colonists and were probably the most influential writings aside from those of John Locke (though Gordon and Trenchard borrowed heavily from Locke's premises) to the founding of this country. That many, if not most, people have never heard of them, much less read them, proves the travesty that is government education. These writings epitomize what is now termed 'classic liberalism'. Not to be confused with today's socialist, leftist neo-liberals.
ReplyDeleteA must read for anyone that values individual liberty and freedom.
HG,
ReplyDeleteAs a scholar of colonial America, I'm thrilled to see this stuff coming up on the blog. A couple of quick things.
1. John Peter Zenger. Also, it's interesting to note that he was both a crusading journalist and a partisan in a big political battle going on in New York in the 1730's. His paper was largely funded by one of the sitting governor's opponents. So much for the old conservative chestnut about media objectivity, which Cato's Letters also obliterate.
2. A sidenote: Franklin published the excerpts of Cato's Letters in his brother's paper, the New England Courant, as a very young man. His brother had been briefly jailed for offending the powers-that-be in Massachusetts, so Ben took his revenge in print.
3. T&G weren't necessarily Lockeans, but that's a whole other story.
Thanks again for posting this!
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info, Jason.
ReplyDeleteRe: objectivity.
That was one of the topics that is featured in The Elements of Journalism, which I suppose I should do a review of, maybe I'll work on that tonight when I have some time ...
The short of it is that journalists aren't expected not to have opinions, or to take a stance. The objectivity is in the methodology, in the devotion to the pursuit of truth. This requires transparency and openness, so that others are able to judge for themself if what you are saying is true. Its a similar principle to that of the scientific method, although obviously less rigorous.
I'd be interested in hearing more about Trenchard and Gordon regarding the influence of Locke. Could you direct my attention to a specific source?
Re: objectivity, I was thinking mostly of the possible relationship between assuming you know someone's political affiliation and the automatic assumption that what someone says is true or false. I work with a lot military folks, and some of them believe disbelieve or distrust anything on MSNBC/CNN because "the MSM is just a bunch of Democrats out to get the President, AND THEY LIE" (close paraphrase of a conversation had last month). (Also, I didn't read that part of the post very carefully!)
ReplyDeleteA couple of sources--check out Gordon Wood's Radicalism of the American Revolution and Foundation (?) of the American Republic. Also, it would be worth having a look at Bernard Bailyn's ideological origins of the American Revolution. Personally, I think T&G are of a piece with Locke, but many scholars associate them with a more conservative "classical republican" tradition in English political thought. (The ur-text for this school of history is JGA Pocock's Machiavellian Moment.)
Okay, I'll shut up now.