Maybe I'm rushing through it, but I have trouble making that quote add up sensibly. My mushy-thinking detector is rattling.

Heck yes, the British are misunderstood. I'm constantly being asked on the telephone to spell my first and last names, and... oh wait, that's not what you meant.

I think the precedent you are looking for is the Magna Carta. I've made the point here at least once that the British, Canadians, Australians, etc have freedoms damn near indistinguishable from the ones Americans have, and I can cite a few they have that USAians don't. They just don't have the compelling history and story behind those rights or have them wrapped up in a nice modern document. The meme that the USA has a monopoly on freedom is incredibly persistent.

Actually, the best place to find an argument from "Natural Rights" or "God-given rights" is not the U.S. Constitution, but the U.S. Declaration of Independence, second sentence. (You know, "We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.") The whole concept of "Natural Rights" is an Enlightenment concept, so it isn't surprising that it formed a fundamental part of the thinking of the American founding fathers. It wasn't part of British tradition, or any other, before the Enlightenment era, although other ideas about the dignity of man and desirability of freedom appeared in other contexts and argued in different ways.

I've been a human rights activist since I was in high school, and in college had a hard-core humanities curriculum for two years that covered most of the philosophers of this era whose works led to the whole idea of "Natural Rights", which in turn gave birth to beliefs in civil rights and human rights. It's a fascinating study.

I don't have time at the moment to do proper research, but I'll just post what looks like a good starting point:

Well, there you have it, Bill. The British ARE misunderstood.

History was my least favorite topic in high school, specifically, British history. American history is so much more interesting. Like I said, the US has a much better story. They get movies like "The Patriot". Britain gets the Mary Queen of Scots skit on Monty Python.

Hi,
I am one of Robert Heinlein's English admirers who has just joined your Forum. Perhaps I should say something on the subject of this thread. I think the key date is 1688-89 when there occurred what we still call the Glorious Revolution. In essence the Catholic King James 11 was flung off the throne and the Whig grandees, merchants and bankers who ran the country invited Dutch William, the Prince of Orange, to come to the English throne in a joint monarchy with Queen Mary 11. A Protestant monarchy was thereby established--but under Parliamentary supremacy.

At the same time the Convention Parliament passed the Declaration of Rights, which goes to the heart of your discussion. The Declaration stated that free Parliamentary elections must be held frequently, that freedom of speech in Parliamentary proceedings could not be challenged by outsiders, that Parliamentary consent was needed to change laws, levy taxation, or maintain a standing army in peacetime, and there should be no "cruel and unusual punishments."

There were other provisions repealing various actions by Charles 11 and James11. Of course this was not the whole deal in terms of modern freedom and constitutional government, but it was a start. John Locke in his Second Treatise on Civil Government was the philosopher and prophet of the Revolution.

It is not fanciful to see a direct historical link between the ideas and principles of 1689 and what happened in America a hundred years later. John Locke did not write the US Constitution but he would have understood and supported every sentence in it.

Moreover the ideas and principles of 1689 provided the historical roots for the later constitutional growth of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, India and several others.

It has been a while since I looked at Double Star but, as I recall , the political and constitutional background to the story did have a somewhat British flavor.

Since I am of Anglo-Irish descent I can understand where Jack Kelly is coming from. I think the tragedy of modern Anglo-Irish history was Gladstone's failure to carry Home Rule for Ireland in 1886 and again in 1892. Ireland might have developed peacefully along Canadian lines. Pity.

I have a recollection of writing a paper in high school history comparing John Locke's ideas with the preamble of the U.S. Constitution, and while I can't remember the particulars, I remember it being very easy to write because of the ideas being so incredibly similar. And I remember I got an A, so I must have gotten the ideas at the time.

I think what happens with good ideas, especially, is that when their time has come, they begin to be accepted all over until they appear to be self-evident. Not in a mystical kind of way, just that after a while, they make so much sense...I know I'm being simplistic.