What an excellent overview that put together pieces I knew with many I didn't. Thank you for posting this, Peter, and thanks to Frances for referring me to it.
And 336 years later, nothing has changed. England is now being conquered by the globalist anti-humans and is about to be imprisoned by digital hell. After more than 4,000 years of battles, finally Europe is about to be settled as populations decline and digital retards take over.
Correction to previous comment: … had become the means for what he termed “spoilation“ or (plunder) …
According to Bastiat and the liberal, free-trade, political economists of his time, there was only one school of economics, that of Le Economistes. On the other hand, there were many schools of socialism, all of which opposed the idea of Le Economistes. The reason for this difference is straightforward, and Bastiat’s view: true economists are concerned with principles, and if people agree on principles, they cannot express conflicting or incoherent statements. On the contrary, socialists want to rebuild human nature and each school has its own recipe for changing society. Bastiat expresses this view in “Justice and fraternity “ (1848): “I believe that what radically divides us is this: political economy reaches the conclusion that only universal justice should be demanded of the law. Socialism, and it’s various branches and through applications whose number is, of course, unlimited, demands an addition that the law should put into practice the dogma of fraternity” … Bastiat also makes a striking comparison between slavery and protectionism: “if I use force to appropriate all the work of a man for my benefit, this man is my slave. He is also my slave, while letting him work freely, I find a way through force or guile to take possession of the fruit of his work.” In his battle with both conservatives and socialists, Bastiat wanted to make the rhetorical and philosophical point that protectionism was just another form of that age-old means of granting privileges to one group at the expense of liberty and property of another group. Thus he gave “this new form of servitude the fine title of protection. “
In response to your question concerning the “Venetian hypothesis” and banking, legal, and justice systems, I would referred you to the writings of Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), and specifically “The Law”. A full compilation of his writings are well worth purchasing. The addition of collected works by the title, “The Law,” “The State”, and Other Political Writings”, general editor, Liberty Fund, Jacques de Guenin. (2012). It’s a six volume work, but the essay of interest here is “The Law.”
Why? It may be said, that men generally do not make economic, banking, or even political decisions, unless they first believe the law, whatever that may be, will somehow protect them subsequent to making a decision and executing it. If that is an appropriate postulate of law, you may find answers or clues to your questions in Bastiat’s writings. The back jacket of the book reads: “… In his famous essay “The Law” Bastiat explains the law, far from being what it ought to be, “namely the instrument enabled the State to protect individuals rights and property, “I’d become the means for what he termed “spoilation“ or plunder. From the article “the state “written at the height of the 1848 revolution in June, comes perhaps his best remembered quotation: “the state is the great fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else. “
I continue to struggle with the "Venetian theory". It seems to me that there are two strains of conspiracy theory competing with each other to explain historical events. They share many similarities, but one postulates that the "black nobility" / Venetians / Catholic church / Jesuits are the masterninds of the bad team with a Jewish contingent doing their bidding, whereas the other postulates that the Jewish contingent is the mastermind.
Lowry asserts that Franklin was NOT truly a member of the notorious Hellfire club but instead was acting as an interloper / spy. Again - typical of Lowry - he seems to have little or no evidence for this beyond his own supposition which runs counter to all other interpretations, and Lowry offers no explanation for, for example, Franklin's effusive, public praise of Dashwood as an excellent fellow (this isn't the exact quote which I can't remember but captures the spirit).
Could you point me at any primary sources which provide evidence for the "Venetian hypothesis"?
What are the names of these Venetians who migrated from Venice to Amsterdam and thence to London?
Who are the leaders of this party today?
Looking at the people who see to control the levers of power today, one finds a great many Jews in key positions - controlling the banking, legal, and justice systems along with the media/propaganda industry and a great many NGOs. If these men are all controlled by the Venetians - how is this done?
Great article Peter. You plucked a chord again with me and my constitutional and envirinmental law training.
I prepared a response (which exceeded the Substack limits) which you may find helpful with respect to the 11:50 point regarding Locke etc.; to which I added Algernon Sidney’s (1683) “Discourses on Government” with an online LINK ….
“… Discourses Concerning Government has been called "the textbook of the American revolution."[1][2] …”
Again, my response exceeded the limit of Substack comments so it was emailed to you.
Also included is excerpts of the work of current Environmental and Constitutional Attorney John Davidson’s (250+page treatise entitled: “Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution,
The Stewardship Doctrine:’ …” as quoting numerous primary source letters of Jefferson, Madison and others.
The Founders believed that current generations should act as stewards for the future. Influenced by legal concepts like usufruct, they emphasized that resources, especially land, should be used in a way that preserves its value for future generations. Thomas Jefferson's letter to James Madison is a key source of these ideas, where Jefferson argued that the earth belongs to the living, and no generation has the right to deplete resources to the detriment of those yet to come. These principles, deeply rooted in the thinking of the time, resonate with modern concerns about sustainability, even though the Founders did not foresee today's environmental challenges.
Key points
🌱 French Influence: The French and American constitution-makers influenced each other, both concerned with intergenerational rights during the shift to republican governance.
🏛️ LaFayette's Proposal: Marquis de LaFayette advocated for a declaration in France recognizing intergenerational rights, including the right to periodic constitutional reform.
🌍 Iroquois Model: The American founders were influenced by the Iroquois, whose constitution stressed the importance of considering the impact on seven future generations.
📜 Jefferson’s Usufruct: Jefferson's principle of usufruct emphasized that the earth belongs to the living, meaning each generation should pass it on undamaged.
🌿 Stewardship of Land: The founders considered land stewardship a fundamental duty, drawing on Roman law and biblical principles.
⏳ Intergenerational Rights: The Founders saw the preservation of land as a more recognized right than political or economic intergenerational rights.
⚖️ Usufruct and Waste: Legal doctrines of usufruct and waste ensured that landholders could not harm the land's long-term value, safeguarding it for future generations.
📖 Jefferson’s Letter to Madison: This correspondence is a critical document articulating the Founders’ belief in intergenerational equity, especially regarding natural resources.
🌱 Burke’s Critique of Waste: Edmund Burke criticized the French Revolution by comparing its destructiveness to landowners committing waste on an estate.
♻️ Modern Implications: Although the Founders did not discuss modern environmental issues, their philosophy supports modern concerns about sustainability and resource preservation.
Summary
1. French-American Influence: French and American constitution-makers shared concerns about ensuring fairness to future generations, particularly during the transition to republics.
2. LaFayette’s Declaration: The French National Assembly, influenced by LaFayette, considered a declaration of intergenerational rights, including the need for periodic reforms.
3. Iroquois Influence on Founders: American founders, including Franklin, admired the Iroquois constitutional principle of considering seven generations in decision-making.
4. Jefferson's Philosophy: In a letter to Madison, Jefferson argued that no generation has the right to exhaust resources, as the earth belongs in usufruct to the living.
5. Legal Concepts: The doctrines of usufruct and waste were central to ensuring land was used responsibly, and not degraded, aligning with intergenerational equity.
6. Burke’s Criticism: Edmund Burke used the concept of wastage upon land as a metaphor for the irresponsible actions of French revolutionaries, further illustrating the concern for future generations.
7. Usufruct Definition: Usufruct is the right to use and benefit from resources without harming their substance, a key legal idea underpinning the founders’ views.
8. Biblical and Lockean Foundations: Jefferson's ideas partly stemmed from biblical and Lockean principles about the earth as a shared resource for all generations.
9. Natural Rights: Jefferson held that landowners cannot naturally control land beyond their lifetime; society should decide its use for the benefit of future generations.
10. Environmental Stewardship: While the Founders didn’t anticipate modern environmental challenges, their principles about resource preservation align with contemporary sustainability efforts.
Could you possibly reproduce the part that concerned Algernon Sidney? I ask because I actually have this book (second edition), and am interested in learning more about it.
I have not found online PDF links to these texts, but they are significant.
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 34.
Caroline Robbins, “Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government: Textbook of Revolution,” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 4:4 (1947), 267-96 at 267.
Alan Craig Houston, Algernon Sidney and the Republican Heritage in England and America(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 224.
Textbook for the American Revolution:
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 34.
Alan Craig Houston, Algernon Sidney and the Republican Heritage in England and America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 224.
Peter Karsten, Patriot Heroes of England and America: Political Symbolism and Changing Values over Three Centuries (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978), 34-35.
“Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government: Textbook of Revolution,” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 4:4 (1947), 267-96 at 267.1.
I have a hard copy of “Discourses on Government” edited by Thomas G. West, Liberty Fund. It can be read online or downloaded. Online version.
For purposes of on-going discussion, I’d suggest starting at the pages listed below; as relating to “First Principles” and responding to the question “What is the Law?” There is a very clear understanding the Founders had when they used this phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”
“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.“
Algernon Sydney”s Discourses on Government, Laws of Nature, pp. xiii-xix, 51,-84,, 94, 103-105, 110-111, 192, 273, 319-322; Laws of God and Nature, pp. 28-44, 57-61, 93-112, 119, 131, 162-196, 310, 348, 408, 417-418, 483, 505, 567, 578; and Liberty as a Gift of Nature, pp. 8-12, 49, 57, 130, 303-309, 445, 510-513, 566.
The Founders also had and exchanged copies of “Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England” (VOL. I-IV, & V supp.) to which I’d refer to you VOL. I, “Section the Second. Of the Nature of Laws in General”. pp. 38-62. I have hard copies of these volumes, but you can access VOL I online here:
The Founders also had and discussed in letters, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers using quotes from Emer de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” (1758). Again, I have a hard copy of it, but it can be accessed online here where I would search for the phrases “natural law” and “laws of nature”. You can also find page numbers of their use in the index.
8 hrs ago·edited 4 hrs agoLiked by The Duke Report
It was a question for the commenter above. He said he had written a very long comment (too long to post) which touched on various topics including algernon sidneyand therefore emailed it to you. I was interested in what he might have said about Sidney and his book.
I have not found online PDF links to these texts, but they are significant.
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 34.
Caroline Robbins, “Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government: Textbook of Revolution,” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 4:4 (1947), 267-96 at 267.
Alan Craig Houston, Algernon Sidney and the Republican Heritage in England and America(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 224.
Textbook for the American Revolution:
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 34.
Alan Craig Houston, Algernon Sidney and the Republican Heritage in England and America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 224.
Peter Karsten, Patriot Heroes of England and America: Political Symbolism and Changing Values over Three Centuries (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978), 34-35.
“Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government: Textbook of Revolution,” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 4:4 (1947), 267-96 at 267.1.
For purposes of on-going discussion, I’d suggest starting at the pages listed below; as relating to “First Principles” and responding to the question “What is the Law?” There is a very clear understanding the Founders had when they used this phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”
“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.“
Algernon Sydney”s Discourses on Government, Laws of Nature, pp. xiii-xix, 51,-84,, 94, 103-105, 110-111, 192, 273, 319-322; Laws of God and Nature, pp. 28-44, 57-61, 93-112, 119, 131, 162-196, 310, 348, 408, 417-418, 483, 505, 567, 578; and Liberty as a Gift of Nature, pp. 8-12, 49, 57, 130, 303-309, 445, 510-513, 566.
The Founders also had and exchanged copies of “Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England” (VOL. I-IV, & V supp.) to which I’d refer to you VOL. I, “Section the Second. Of the Nature of Laws in General”. pp. 38-62. I have hard copies of these volumes, but you can access VOL I online here:
The Founders also had and discussed in letters, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers using quotes from Emer de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” (1758). Again, I have a hard copy of it, but it can be accessed online here where I would search for the phrases “natural law” and “laws of nature”. You can also find page numbers of their use in the index.
Thank you for this information,😊 Very helpful in understanding the source of our current turmoil .
I am new to learning true "History" since being Red Pilled by Convid, I have deleted my previous indoctrinated knowledge, re Science,Nutrition,Medicine,Politics 🤔 actually everything 😳
This will help me and my friends ,you are a 🌟
I found you through Telegram, Dr Mike Yeadon Solo Chanel.It is a Brilliant source of current and past, false and censored.information, many links across a wide range of subjects.
Have never seen Leibniz or Swift's work used in this sort of way. Hope you will continue to develop this view even if it leads off the edge of neatly packaged overarching Political E-CON theory. Keep the his\herstorical references visible along with any links to docs.
Thank you to The Duke Report and to Frances for making us aware of it!
You're quite welcome!
What an excellent overview that put together pieces I knew with many I didn't. Thank you for posting this, Peter, and thanks to Frances for referring me to it.
Many thanks! You confirm and augment my work very thoroughly. I have cross-posted.
i'm really just synthesizing other peoples work from the 1990s in this Venetian series … H Graeme Lowry gets the credit
I'm doing LaRouche archaeology
And 336 years later, nothing has changed. England is now being conquered by the globalist anti-humans and is about to be imprisoned by digital hell. After more than 4,000 years of battles, finally Europe is about to be settled as populations decline and digital retards take over.
Excellent stuff Frankie.
Correction to previous comment: … had become the means for what he termed “spoilation“ or (plunder) …
According to Bastiat and the liberal, free-trade, political economists of his time, there was only one school of economics, that of Le Economistes. On the other hand, there were many schools of socialism, all of which opposed the idea of Le Economistes. The reason for this difference is straightforward, and Bastiat’s view: true economists are concerned with principles, and if people agree on principles, they cannot express conflicting or incoherent statements. On the contrary, socialists want to rebuild human nature and each school has its own recipe for changing society. Bastiat expresses this view in “Justice and fraternity “ (1848): “I believe that what radically divides us is this: political economy reaches the conclusion that only universal justice should be demanded of the law. Socialism, and it’s various branches and through applications whose number is, of course, unlimited, demands an addition that the law should put into practice the dogma of fraternity” … Bastiat also makes a striking comparison between slavery and protectionism: “if I use force to appropriate all the work of a man for my benefit, this man is my slave. He is also my slave, while letting him work freely, I find a way through force or guile to take possession of the fruit of his work.” In his battle with both conservatives and socialists, Bastiat wanted to make the rhetorical and philosophical point that protectionism was just another form of that age-old means of granting privileges to one group at the expense of liberty and property of another group. Thus he gave “this new form of servitude the fine title of protection. “
In response to your question concerning the “Venetian hypothesis” and banking, legal, and justice systems, I would referred you to the writings of Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850), and specifically “The Law”. A full compilation of his writings are well worth purchasing. The addition of collected works by the title, “The Law,” “The State”, and Other Political Writings”, general editor, Liberty Fund, Jacques de Guenin. (2012). It’s a six volume work, but the essay of interest here is “The Law.”
https://cdn.mises.org/thelaw.pdf
Why? It may be said, that men generally do not make economic, banking, or even political decisions, unless they first believe the law, whatever that may be, will somehow protect them subsequent to making a decision and executing it. If that is an appropriate postulate of law, you may find answers or clues to your questions in Bastiat’s writings. The back jacket of the book reads: “… In his famous essay “The Law” Bastiat explains the law, far from being what it ought to be, “namely the instrument enabled the State to protect individuals rights and property, “I’d become the means for what he termed “spoilation“ or plunder. From the article “the state “written at the height of the 1848 revolution in June, comes perhaps his best remembered quotation: “the state is the great fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else. “
I continue to struggle with the "Venetian theory". It seems to me that there are two strains of conspiracy theory competing with each other to explain historical events. They share many similarities, but one postulates that the "black nobility" / Venetians / Catholic church / Jesuits are the masterninds of the bad team with a Jewish contingent doing their bidding, whereas the other postulates that the Jewish contingent is the mastermind.
While Lowry seems to be intelligent and knowledgeable, he makes a great many assertions in this video and in his other work without citing the primary sources or much in the way of proof. For example we are told that William of Orange was installed by "the Venetians". The problem I have with this is that when we look into the matter we see that his invasion was financed by Francisco Lopes Suasso - a Jewish banker originally hailing from Portugal. e.g. see https://www.haaretz.com/jewish/2015-04-22/ty-article/.premium/banker-who-helped-william-win-england-dies/0000017f-e5bb-df5f-a17f-ffff6ea40000 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Lopes_Suasso. This gentleman appears to have no connection to Venice.
In another piece here Lowry writes an article on Benjamin Franklin: https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2008/eirv35n03-20080118/eirv35n03-20080118_046-who_was_benjamin_franklin.pdf
Lowry asserts that Franklin was NOT truly a member of the notorious Hellfire club but instead was acting as an interloper / spy. Again - typical of Lowry - he seems to have little or no evidence for this beyond his own supposition which runs counter to all other interpretations, and Lowry offers no explanation for, for example, Franklin's effusive, public praise of Dashwood as an excellent fellow (this isn't the exact quote which I can't remember but captures the spirit).
Could you point me at any primary sources which provide evidence for the "Venetian hypothesis"?
What are the names of these Venetians who migrated from Venice to Amsterdam and thence to London?
Who are the leaders of this party today?
Looking at the people who see to control the levers of power today, one finds a great many Jews in key positions - controlling the banking, legal, and justice systems along with the media/propaganda industry and a great many NGOs. If these men are all controlled by the Venetians - how is this done?
Makes on reconsider what we understood as the High Renaissance?
Great article Peter. You plucked a chord again with me and my constitutional and envirinmental law training.
I prepared a response (which exceeded the Substack limits) which you may find helpful with respect to the 11:50 point regarding Locke etc.; to which I added Algernon Sidney’s (1683) “Discourses on Government” with an online LINK ….
“… Discourses Concerning Government has been called "the textbook of the American revolution."[1][2] …”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algernon_Sidney
Again, my response exceeded the limit of Substack comments so it was emailed to you.
Also included is excerpts of the work of current Environmental and Constitutional Attorney John Davidson’s (250+page treatise entitled: “Intergenerational Justice in the United States Constitution,
The Stewardship Doctrine:’ …” as quoting numerous primary source letters of Jefferson, Madison and others.
Table of Contents:
http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-Intro2.htm
In my email I have excerpted portions from this sub-section for consideration.
II. The Intergenerational Philosophy of the Founders and Their Contemporaries
A. A Pervasive concern for future generations - Recognition of Intergenerational Obligations
http://www.conlaw.org/Intergenerational-II-2-1.htm
🌀J
The Founders believed that current generations should act as stewards for the future. Influenced by legal concepts like usufruct, they emphasized that resources, especially land, should be used in a way that preserves its value for future generations. Thomas Jefferson's letter to James Madison is a key source of these ideas, where Jefferson argued that the earth belongs to the living, and no generation has the right to deplete resources to the detriment of those yet to come. These principles, deeply rooted in the thinking of the time, resonate with modern concerns about sustainability, even though the Founders did not foresee today's environmental challenges.
Key points
🌱 French Influence: The French and American constitution-makers influenced each other, both concerned with intergenerational rights during the shift to republican governance.
🏛️ LaFayette's Proposal: Marquis de LaFayette advocated for a declaration in France recognizing intergenerational rights, including the right to periodic constitutional reform.
🌍 Iroquois Model: The American founders were influenced by the Iroquois, whose constitution stressed the importance of considering the impact on seven future generations.
📜 Jefferson’s Usufruct: Jefferson's principle of usufruct emphasized that the earth belongs to the living, meaning each generation should pass it on undamaged.
🌿 Stewardship of Land: The founders considered land stewardship a fundamental duty, drawing on Roman law and biblical principles.
⏳ Intergenerational Rights: The Founders saw the preservation of land as a more recognized right than political or economic intergenerational rights.
⚖️ Usufruct and Waste: Legal doctrines of usufruct and waste ensured that landholders could not harm the land's long-term value, safeguarding it for future generations.
📖 Jefferson’s Letter to Madison: This correspondence is a critical document articulating the Founders’ belief in intergenerational equity, especially regarding natural resources.
🌱 Burke’s Critique of Waste: Edmund Burke criticized the French Revolution by comparing its destructiveness to landowners committing waste on an estate.
♻️ Modern Implications: Although the Founders did not discuss modern environmental issues, their philosophy supports modern concerns about sustainability and resource preservation.
Summary
1. French-American Influence: French and American constitution-makers shared concerns about ensuring fairness to future generations, particularly during the transition to republics.
2. LaFayette’s Declaration: The French National Assembly, influenced by LaFayette, considered a declaration of intergenerational rights, including the need for periodic reforms.
3. Iroquois Influence on Founders: American founders, including Franklin, admired the Iroquois constitutional principle of considering seven generations in decision-making.
4. Jefferson's Philosophy: In a letter to Madison, Jefferson argued that no generation has the right to exhaust resources, as the earth belongs in usufruct to the living.
5. Legal Concepts: The doctrines of usufruct and waste were central to ensuring land was used responsibly, and not degraded, aligning with intergenerational equity.
6. Burke’s Criticism: Edmund Burke used the concept of wastage upon land as a metaphor for the irresponsible actions of French revolutionaries, further illustrating the concern for future generations.
7. Usufruct Definition: Usufruct is the right to use and benefit from resources without harming their substance, a key legal idea underpinning the founders’ views.
8. Biblical and Lockean Foundations: Jefferson's ideas partly stemmed from biblical and Lockean principles about the earth as a shared resource for all generations.
9. Natural Rights: Jefferson held that landowners cannot naturally control land beyond their lifetime; society should decide its use for the benefit of future generations.
10. Environmental Stewardship: While the Founders didn’t anticipate modern environmental challenges, their principles about resource preservation align with contemporary sustainability efforts.
I don't think that Substack limits the length of your article, it only limits how much it can put into an email
Could you possibly reproduce the part that concerned Algernon Sidney? I ask because I actually have this book (second edition), and am interested in learning more about it.
Thanks.
which book?
I just added this to the previous comment offered yesterday. May help🌀
“Textbook for the American Revolution”:
This 92 page Thesis at the first link provides a modern overview of Algernon Sidney’s importance among the Founders of the Republic.
THESIS:
Semel, Laura K., "The Lost Philosopher: Algernon Sidney and the American Enlightenment" (2001). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626319. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5288&context=etd
I have not found online PDF links to these texts, but they are significant.
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 34.
Caroline Robbins, “Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government: Textbook of Revolution,” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 4:4 (1947), 267-96 at 267.
Alan Craig Houston, Algernon Sidney and the Republican Heritage in England and America(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 224.
Textbook for the American Revolution:
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 34.
Alan Craig Houston, Algernon Sidney and the Republican Heritage in England and America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 224.
Peter Karsten, Patriot Heroes of England and America: Political Symbolism and Changing Values over Three Centuries (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978), 34-35.
“Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government: Textbook of Revolution,” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 4:4 (1947), 267-96 at 267.1.
I have a hard copy of “Discourses on Government” edited by Thomas G. West, Liberty Fund. It can be read online or downloaded. Online version.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/sidney-discourses-concerning-government
For purposes of on-going discussion, I’d suggest starting at the pages listed below; as relating to “First Principles” and responding to the question “What is the Law?” There is a very clear understanding the Founders had when they used this phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”
“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.“
Algernon Sydney”s Discourses on Government, Laws of Nature, pp. xiii-xix, 51,-84,, 94, 103-105, 110-111, 192, 273, 319-322; Laws of God and Nature, pp. 28-44, 57-61, 93-112, 119, 131, 162-196, 310, 348, 408, 417-418, 483, 505, 567, 578; and Liberty as a Gift of Nature, pp. 8-12, 49, 57, 130, 303-309, 445, 510-513, 566.
The Founders also had and exchanged copies of “Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England” (VOL. I-IV, & V supp.) to which I’d refer to you VOL. I, “Section the Second. Of the Nature of Laws in General”. pp. 38-62. I have hard copies of these volumes, but you can access VOL I online here:
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/sharswood-commentaries-on-the-laws-of-england-in-four-books-vol-1
The Founders also had and discussed in letters, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers using quotes from Emer de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” (1758). Again, I have a hard copy of it, but it can be accessed online here where I would search for the phrases “natural law” and “laws of nature”. You can also find page numbers of their use in the index.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/vattel-life-and-works
"Discourses concerning government"
I guess I don't know what you're asking
It was a question for the commenter above. He said he had written a very long comment (too long to post) which touched on various topics including algernon sidneyand therefore emailed it to you. I was interested in what he might have said about Sidney and his book.
This may help🌀
“Textbook for the American Revolution”:
This 92 page Thesis at the first link provides a modern overview of Algernon Sidney’s importance among the Founders of the Republic.
THESIS:
Semel, Laura K., "The Lost Philosopher: Algernon Sidney and the American Enlightenment" (2001). Dissertations, Theses, and Masters Projects. Paper 1539626319. https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5288&context=etd
I have not found online PDF links to these texts, but they are significant.
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 34.
Caroline Robbins, “Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government: Textbook of Revolution,” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 4:4 (1947), 267-96 at 267.
Alan Craig Houston, Algernon Sidney and the Republican Heritage in England and America(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 224.
Textbook for the American Revolution:
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 34.
Alan Craig Houston, Algernon Sidney and the Republican Heritage in England and America (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991), 224.
Peter Karsten, Patriot Heroes of England and America: Political Symbolism and Changing Values over Three Centuries (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1978), 34-35.
“Algernon Sidney’s Discourses Concerning Government: Textbook of Revolution,” William and Mary Quarterly 3rd ser., 4:4 (1947), 267-96 at 267.1.
I have a hard copy of “Discourses on Government” edited by Thomas G. West, Liberty Fund. It can be read online or downloaded. Online version. https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/sidney-discourses-concerning-government
For purposes of on-going discussion, I’d suggest starting at the pages listed below; as relating to “First Principles” and responding to the question “What is the Law?” There is a very clear understanding the Founders had when they used this phrase in the Declaration of Independence: “Laws of Nature and Nature’s God”
“WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.“
Algernon Sydney”s Discourses on Government, Laws of Nature, pp. xiii-xix, 51,-84,, 94, 103-105, 110-111, 192, 273, 319-322; Laws of God and Nature, pp. 28-44, 57-61, 93-112, 119, 131, 162-196, 310, 348, 408, 417-418, 483, 505, 567, 578; and Liberty as a Gift of Nature, pp. 8-12, 49, 57, 130, 303-309, 445, 510-513, 566.
The Founders also had and exchanged copies of “Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England” (VOL. I-IV, & V supp.) to which I’d refer to you VOL. I, “Section the Second. Of the Nature of Laws in General”. pp. 38-62. I have hard copies of these volumes, but you can access VOL I online here:
https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/sharswood-commentaries-on-the-laws-of-england-in-four-books-vol-1
The Founders also had and discussed in letters, pamphlets, newspaper articles, and the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers using quotes from Emer de Vattel’s “Law of Nations” (1758). Again, I have a hard copy of it, but it can be accessed online here where I would search for the phrases “natural law” and “laws of nature”. You can also find page numbers of their use in the index.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/pages/vattel-life-and-works
Thank you for this Frances.
I am in process of publishing an eBook with Global Research on the start of WWIII.
I am citing your work; in particular on the Venetian system, including today's article by Lowry.
Thank you for all you do.
I will be sending you the link to the eBook soon.
Richard Cook
Thank you for this information,😊 Very helpful in understanding the source of our current turmoil .
I am new to learning true "History" since being Red Pilled by Convid, I have deleted my previous indoctrinated knowledge, re Science,Nutrition,Medicine,Politics 🤔 actually everything 😳
This will help me and my friends ,you are a 🌟
I found you through Telegram, Dr Mike Yeadon Solo Chanel.It is a Brilliant source of current and past, false and censored.information, many links across a wide range of subjects.
Fantastic article! Excellent research!
Have never seen Leibniz or Swift's work used in this sort of way. Hope you will continue to develop this view even if it leads off the edge of neatly packaged overarching Political E-CON theory. Keep the his\herstorical references visible along with any links to docs.
Health and balance
Keep on digging
Tio Mitchito
Mitch Ritter\Paradigm Sifters, Code Shifters, PsalmSong Chasers
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa (Refuge of Atonement Seekers)
Media Discussion List\Looksee
Can you post your videos here as well...I’m lazy
Does this connect to what people call the Black Nobility..?