Listen to a discussion of this letter in the Ozarks Virtual Town Hall
Notes and Comments
|I. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men.
II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.
III. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects.
|I. Become an Extraordinary Human Being
II. Become an Extraordinary Christian.
III. Become an Extraordinary American.
|We have added all hypertext links in the left-hand column.
|All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.||The word "society" here might be confusing. What Adams means by "society" in most cases (we have highlighted all occurrences) is "civil society," as he says here, here, and elsewhere, as when he equates "citizens" and "members of society."
What he means by "civil society" is human beings under a civil government, which we call "The State."
It is better to distinguish "society" from "the State." You can have a "civil" (i.e., "humane") society where human beings trade with each other and observe "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" in the absence of "the State" -- without "civil government." Adams does not make this distinction.
Thus, when Adams speaks of "leaving the society they belong to," he means secession -- abandoning an oppressive government.
See the articles on secession at
|When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.||If you and I enter into a contract for you to mow my lawn and me to pay you, it is by voluntary consent; you have the right to be paid, and I have the right to a manicured lawn. I don't give up my right to life, liberty and the rest of my property.
A "social compact" is a similar contract between an entire group of people. When we create a "civil government," we do not lose our natural "rights," which is to say that the government we create cannot claim to be god.
|Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.||In my contract with you to mow my lawn, I expressly give up the right to prosecute you for trespassing on my lawn, and the right to the property (money) I will pay you for mowing my lawn. I don't give you the right to swim in my swimming pool, nor the right to seize the rest of my property.|
|All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.||John Locke put it this way:
|As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.||Baptists cannot be forced by "civil society" ("the government") to baptize their babies; Presbyterians cannot be forced to immerse their babies.|
|"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, [Page 418] as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.||Civil laws -- from nations to municipalities -- must be based on the Bible, as Locke said above.|
|In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed.||
Jihadist Muslims do not believe in toleration.
Whose doctrines are "subversive of society," or "subversive of the civil government?" By what standard is "subversive" measured? Answer: the Bible; Christianity. This is why atheists were not tolerated.
In 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court observed the obvious, that America was "a Christian nation." But more specifically, it was a Protestant nation. Even more specifically still, it was a Calvinist nation. Roman Catholics could not hold office because they believed in monarchy, and were loyal to a foreign monarch.
What about Muslims today? Where is their loyalty? Osama bin Ladin? Would it be inappropriate for adherents of certain religions to be required to take a loyalty oath, such as naturalized citizens must take?
|The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.|
|In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.||The idea that America is one nation "under God" did not originate in the Eisenhower administration.|
|In the last case, he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should also be willing to pay his just quota for the support of government, the law, and the constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil, ecclesiastical, marine, or military.||There is no natural necessity for a compulsory, monopoly system of arbitration of disputes which we call "the government." We could abolish "the government" and the Free Market could arbitrate all disputes, just as it did for centuries under the Lex Mercatoria (law of merchants). If there is a demand for Dispute Resolution Organizations, the Market will provide them. We don't need an entity called "the Civil Government" to furnish referees, any more than we need it to furnish computers or groceries.|
|[Page 419] The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.||Law of Nature = the Bible.|
|In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.||This relates to taxation. The people decide on the wages of the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats can't pay themselves whatever they want, and confiscate their wages by force from the People.
Note that this entire section is based on the Bible. It is based on a Christian worldview.
|In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.|
|See the opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in Vidal vs. Girard's Executors (1844), which held that government-operated schools in Christian nations like America must teach the Christian Bible.|
|[Page 420] By the act of the British Parliament, commonly called the Toleration Act, every subject in England, except Papists, &c., was restored to, and re-established in, his natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. And, by the charter of this Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is, declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory. Magna Charta itself is in substance but a constrained declaration or proclamation and promulgation in the name of the King, Lords, and Commons, of the sense the latter had of their original, inherent, indefeasible natural rights, as also those of free citizens equally perdurable with the other. That great author, that great jurist, and even that court writer, Mr. Justice Blackstone, holds that this recognition was justly obtained of King John, sword in hand. And peradventure it must be one day, sword in hand, again rescued and preserved from total destruction and oblivion.||George Washington's Advice: Be a better Christian
Jesus said "Put away thy sword."
|The absolute rights of Englishmen and all freemen, in or out of civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty, and private property.|
|All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm. Among those rights are the following, which no man, or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens, or members of society, can for themselves give up or take away from others.|
|[Page 421] First, "The first fundamental, positive law of all common wealths or states is the establishing the legislative power. As the first fundamental natural law, also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the society."|
|Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people; nor can mortals assume a prerogative not only too high for men, but for angels, and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.|
|"The Legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided by promulgated, standing, and known laws, and authorized independent judges"; that is, independent, as far as possible, of Prince and people. "There should be one rule of justice for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at the plough."||The quote is from Locke.|
|Thirdly, The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person or by his representative.|
|These are some of the first principles of natural law and justice, and the great barriers of all free states and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcilable to these principles and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense, and reason that a British House of Commons should have a right at pleasure to give and grant the property of the Colonists. (That the Colonists are well entitled to all the essential rights, liberties, and privileges of men and freemen born in Britain is manifest not only from the Colony charters in general, but acts of the British Parliament.) The statute of the 13th of Geo. 2, C. 7, naturalizes even foreigners after seven years' residence. The words of the Massachusetts charter are these: "And further, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby for us, our heirs, and successors, grant, establish, and ordain, that all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, which shall go to, and inhabit within our said Province or Territory, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born there or on the seas in going thither or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the dominions [Page 422] of us, our heirs, and successors, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever as if they and every one of them were born within this our realm of England."|
|Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent? Can it be said with any color of truth and justice, that this continent of three thousand miles in length, and of a breadth as yet unexplored, in which, however, it is supposed there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote, or influence in the British Parliament? Have they all together any more weight or power to return a single member to that House of Commons who have not inadvertently, but deliberately, assumed a power to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China? Had the Colonists a right to return members to the British Parliament, it would only be hurtful; as, from their local situation and circumstances, it is impossible they should ever be truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country, in all probability, in a few years, will be more numerous than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected by the promoters of the present measures that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy, while their property shall be disposed of by a House of Commons at three thousand miles' distance from them, and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest; who have not only no natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed against it, as every burden they lay on the Colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. Hitherto, many of the Colonists have been free from quit rents; but if the breath of a British House of Commons can originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next, or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords, who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt. The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels only for complaining of their grievances. How long such treatment will or ought to be borne, is submitted.||Where "rights" are emphasized rather than duties, the people will clamor for their "entitlements." They will vote for "swarms of officers" to eat out your substance, imagining that their substance will be safe - or not caring if they lose everything, as long as you do
Many people have considered themselves Christians and were not completely consistent with the teachings of Christ.