Still, one cannot help but think there's more to the idea of "The Rights of Englishmen." I mean, can it possibly be true that this is a special, almost blood-bourne code of conduct that only white Americans are capable of living by?
Is there any more to it?
One would think so after taking a look at how the term "Rights of Englishmen" is used in recent years:
HP Lovecraft was absolutely right, the foreign immigrants who came to the United States after 1919 were incapable of understanding the Rights of Englishmen and have proven utterly incapable of devising anything better.
Indeed, through their ahistorical inventions of "the melting pot" and "the proposition nation" and "equality" and "diversity is our strength", they have completely and utterly destroyed that expanded Anglo-Saxonism that briefly made America the greatest, most powerful, and wealthiest nation on Earth.So, now I have questions. What else is there to understanding the Rights of Englishmen? Are the "Rights of Englishmen" truly an expanded Anglo-Saxonism that made America an advanced place to live? Is this some sort of almost magical ethos tracing itself back to ancient Sparta or Sumeria? Is it only something we can feel in our blood, and hence blacks, Hispanics, and Asians cannot understand it?
Or is someone merely making a mountain out of a molehill?
Yesterday, the Whigs themselves told us in a handbill that the Rights of Englishmen means that lawmaking belongs not just to a king, but to a parliament and representatives, that free men should enjoy liberty and be represented in the legislature, and that they ought to be able to vote for representatives in a parliament. Also, a new House of Commons should be elected yearly. That's it.
A Historian Weighs In On The Question
Once more, I had the pleasure of having Charles Coulombe give his take on this very specific question that I sent him.
Laramie Hirsch asks, "Can you tell us what were the "Rights of Englishmen?"
Well, the Rights of Englishmen were the rights under the Common Law. A man's home is his castle, he has a right to his own property, he has a right to trial by jury, a right to not be molested. These were the Rights of Englishmen.
He asks, "Were the Rights of Englishmen a new improvement to previous Catholic political paradigms?"
No. Everything we think of in this area comes from the Common Law. And the Common Law was developed in Catholic times.
You know, if anything, certainly under Henry VIII and Elizabeth, there was a diminution of the rights of the individual. That was why Elizabeth had to have [William] Cecil put out a secret police and read people's letters to find out that they were harboring Catholics and so forth. That was completely alien to the Common Law, and had to be invented on the spot.
The Rights of Englishmen goes beyond the Whig propaganda of the late 1700s that Benjamin Franklin so admired--even though it was the propaganda in particular that he was fond of. More than a clarion call for the support of a Whig oligarchy, the Rights of Englishmen is traced back even further to something else, which is Common Law.
...and Common Law is a product of Catholics. Not Protestant Whig power brokers.
More coming up.