Post by PatriotsUnite on Apr 20, 2004 18:43:26 GMT -5
Charles Louis Joseph de Secondat, the Baron of Montesquieu (1689 – 1755) was cited more frequently by the Founding Fathers than any other source, bar the Bible. He is best known for his work “The Spirit of Laws”, in which he presented four legitimate forms of government: Monarchy, Aristocracy, Republican Democracy, and Despotism. He wrote extensively about the “Laws of Nature” and their relationship to mankind, and spoke of them as divine rights common to all men.
Since all of Europe was subject to one monarch or another, the will of the people and their individual beliefs were secondary to those that ruled over them. The concept of religious freedom for the individual usually meant forming an alliance with Noblemen who had the power to effect change to their circumstances, and then replacing the leader in power by military force. As you could imagine, this gave very little freedom and power to individual thought, the amount of freedom they perceived they had, and their ability to exercise all. In other words, they lived in an entirely different mindset than what we enjoy as absolute rights inherent to all of mankind.
Barons, as was Montesquieu, were landowners who had peasants that worked their land in exchange for a mutual compact, of protection for taxation in one form or another. Undoubtedly, Montesquieu (being a middle man of sorts) had two things going for him. Title, and a desire for greater freedom he himself had the ability to exercise. I am certain that many peasants dreamed of having such freedom, but without the protection and mutual support of their landlords (so to speak), they were powerless to control their freedoms and destiny. It took a nobleman to write of freedom as he did, as it would have been found baseless and mere folly to come from a mere citizen or peasant.
In a most irreverent and revolutionary act of defiance, and an unheard of display of personal liberty; Montesquieu wrote what others had dreamed of… The right of mankind to rule by mutual compact and self governance… a Republican Democracy. In it, he described what he believed to be mankind’s underpinning of authority for government.
He wrote: “Of the Relation of Laws to different Beings. Laws, in their most general signification, are the necessary relations arising from the nature of things. In this sense all beings have their laws: the Deity His laws, the material world its laws, the intelligences superior to man their laws, the beasts their laws, man his laws”<br>
He began the process of breaking down “the laws of social science” into commonly understood beliefs of the nature of law itself. He goes on to explain the basis for his writing: “Since we observe that the world, though formed by the motion of matter, and void of understanding, subsists through so long a succession of ages, its motions must certainly be directed by invariable laws; and could we imagine another world, it must also have constant rules, or it would inevitably perish”.
He began the foundation that our Forefathers embraced as rights inherent to all of mankind. A revolutionary concept! The Law of Nature. It is not a speculative phrase. It’s history and origin can be traced and studied throughout his and other works of that period. To imply that our Founding Fathers used this term lightly or arbitrarily is simply false. To birth of the notion of personal freedom from Monarchy and of religious beliefs were rooted in works, such as the writings of men like Montesquieu.
www.patriotsunite.com
Since all of Europe was subject to one monarch or another, the will of the people and their individual beliefs were secondary to those that ruled over them. The concept of religious freedom for the individual usually meant forming an alliance with Noblemen who had the power to effect change to their circumstances, and then replacing the leader in power by military force. As you could imagine, this gave very little freedom and power to individual thought, the amount of freedom they perceived they had, and their ability to exercise all. In other words, they lived in an entirely different mindset than what we enjoy as absolute rights inherent to all of mankind.
Barons, as was Montesquieu, were landowners who had peasants that worked their land in exchange for a mutual compact, of protection for taxation in one form or another. Undoubtedly, Montesquieu (being a middle man of sorts) had two things going for him. Title, and a desire for greater freedom he himself had the ability to exercise. I am certain that many peasants dreamed of having such freedom, but without the protection and mutual support of their landlords (so to speak), they were powerless to control their freedoms and destiny. It took a nobleman to write of freedom as he did, as it would have been found baseless and mere folly to come from a mere citizen or peasant.
In a most irreverent and revolutionary act of defiance, and an unheard of display of personal liberty; Montesquieu wrote what others had dreamed of… The right of mankind to rule by mutual compact and self governance… a Republican Democracy. In it, he described what he believed to be mankind’s underpinning of authority for government.
He wrote: “Of the Relation of Laws to different Beings. Laws, in their most general signification, are the necessary relations arising from the nature of things. In this sense all beings have their laws: the Deity His laws, the material world its laws, the intelligences superior to man their laws, the beasts their laws, man his laws”<br>
He began the process of breaking down “the laws of social science” into commonly understood beliefs of the nature of law itself. He goes on to explain the basis for his writing: “Since we observe that the world, though formed by the motion of matter, and void of understanding, subsists through so long a succession of ages, its motions must certainly be directed by invariable laws; and could we imagine another world, it must also have constant rules, or it would inevitably perish”.
He began the foundation that our Forefathers embraced as rights inherent to all of mankind. A revolutionary concept! The Law of Nature. It is not a speculative phrase. It’s history and origin can be traced and studied throughout his and other works of that period. To imply that our Founding Fathers used this term lightly or arbitrarily is simply false. To birth of the notion of personal freedom from Monarchy and of religious beliefs were rooted in works, such as the writings of men like Montesquieu.
www.patriotsunite.com