US Constitution: Rethinking an American Myth

[@davidstarkeytalks]

Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks and submit questions for members Q & A videos. Also visit www.davidstarkey.com to make a donation and visit the channel store shop.davidstarkey.com. Thank you for watching.

[@JosephNoussair]

I disagree. Anyone who has made more than a cursory look at the origins of the American form of government finds that all of the features of the original structure of the US Constitutions sees immediately that it is both an attempt to copy the best features and diminish the worst features of Britain's parliamentary system. The strong-ish presidency was an effort to address the demands of some for a head of state to have some of the powers of a monarch, and the parliamentary procedures and separation of chambers a clear attempt to moderate the baying nature and corrupt practices of MPs. Every institution of our government is a reflection of some kind or another on the organization of Britain's governance at the time.

[@richardwalton6993]

“It sounds great, the practice is often horrible.” The problem is the penetration and subversion of parliament by those determined to deprive you of your independence and, ultimately, your freedom.

[@redsix5165]

It seems to me that the argument you put forward around principles vs political reality falls a bit short. You can fast forward 300 years and the politics of the day seems to be that homosexuality is persecuted again and slavery is en vogue… it seems that the search for true principles is a worthy endeavour and must have some logic in human experience.

[@stevewatson6839]

@@JosephNoussair Corrupt MP's eh? The most corrupt legislature in the English speaking world is by a country mile the US Congress, and your current President the very embodiment of that corruption. Set in aspic.

[@laurenjeangreenbean6301]

@@JosephNoussair in reference to the presidential position, I put that many concessions in this and many other areas (of structural design/hierarchy of govt in US) were not initially entertained as "American". The opportunities of newer states (georgia, sc, others) was inflated by inclusions of indentured peoples in population as voters, or basing electoral power based on size, age in colonial group, or natural resources, all to leverage population or acreage, depending upon what camp the representatives identified ideologically with. They all occasionally abandon core values in order to benefit. The commander in chief role becomes a construct of placation and compromise mostly with Washington himself, who hated the concept. Likely, many of our rights and rules of law and enforcement of will of the people were down to backroom deals and political skullduggery. As most of them had family, shares, land, religious agendas, etc in mother country or were entangled with the French. There's a storm of circumstance and providence in those days,and we are lucky to inherit, which somehow comforts one that such is life and politics...lies and death, structure to contain chaos. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[@bradbarnes1839]

I was dubious of your thesis at the start David, but you won me over to your point of view by the end. Well done

[@philipedwards9129]

Dr Starkey is a genius. Do knowledgeable and able to make links and offer an overview. I love him

[@SunofYork]

Most English people are like that....

[@simplelifelost]

Thank you Dr Starkey, one of your best, as least as far as it relates to my education... Fantastic analysis.

[@TerenceOToole]

What a great exam question … ____ “We need to diminish the role of written documents when we talk about the functionings of politics, we need to have a much higher regard to the unspoken traditions of political behaviour” - David Starkey (Historian) Discuss. ___

[@laurenjeangreenbean6301]

Oh, what a beauty of a statement. I wish it were in a different platform, to have a proper debate!

[@Eris123451]

@@laurenjeangreenbean6301 I thought it was a complete load of Bollocks frankly, but superbly and plausibly argued nonetheless. The importance of those documents, (such as The American Bill of Rights and The Declaration of Independence,) was and remains so; that they are the authentic voices of the past informing us us about what their authors felt and believed and that they were intended to be such. Also the American constitution is not nearly as inflexible or sclerotic as Starkey tries to argue or there wouldn't be 18 amendments to it, I also think think that some of parallels he tries to draw, such as the one between the American Senate and The House of Lords are unconvincing. Like many gifted people Starkey has a distinctly evil and subtle or sometimes not so subtle sense of humor and clearly enjoys winding people up and I get strong sense that there a lot of that going on in this particular talk. How much of this stuff he really believes and how sincerely is an open question, but good fun nonetheless.

[@barrylarking8986]

One of your very best Dr. Starkey. Many thanks.

[@aaronfire359]

Thank you very much for answering my question Dr. Starkey!

[@jonathanedwards983]

I was not convinced by the answer. I agree that the US Constitution was based on English usage, as Dr.S says. He goes on to say that it simply added a thin top-dressing, a view I can understand. But when it comes to England, the argument is similar. We could do with a Written Constitution which is a top dressing. But this would not be something thin. England would have to involve the people as the Americans did, through Conventions. The written constitution which then emerged would (1) have a new legitimacy and (2) defuse the very strong feeling in England that those in power don't listen to the people, a justified feeling. Some qualifications which don't undermine the avoid points. The Convention process could - anchor England - allow Wales (my country) to follow its own track, to de-colonise - allow the re-founding of the European Union, which has the same defect as England ie has not obtained legitimacy from the people themselves, though it could have done. PS -grateful to my A-Level study of the US Constitution, many US tutors, and my American wife. And to Dr.S even when I don't agree with him 100%

[@aaronfire359]

@@jonathanedwards983 I’m still grateful of his response but in truth I’m of a slightly different opinion from Dr. Starkey in this, but only in that while it is true that constitutions on their own cannot guarantee stability or proper government, that it is not the constitutions alone which is required. A means to enforce the authority of those constitutions and a willingness to stand by them for any number of reasons is also at issue and required. Legitimacy is largely an accumulative sort of thing, as long as the forms and institutions of government have been practiced for long enough and produce good results, they’ll largely be seen as legitimate one way or another and sooner or later. If he ever does a video on any of my other questions he’ll run up against the name Thomas Hobbes, and Hobbes says “covenants (constitutions) without the sword (coercive and binding authority) are but words, and with no power to secure a man at all.” So he is very correct, but in my opinion not entirely correct, constitutions only go so far but it’s largely down to how much authority is built in and a means to act out that authority. The Whiskey rebellion started very shortly after the constitution was ratified, but when the PA rebels heard that Washington was coming with an army to stop them they dispersed without a shot being fired, and the constitution stipulates that the central government had the legal authority to do so.

[@1who4me]

Hes British guys- the Brits still can’t accept that what the Founding Fathers did created a new landscape in nationhood and govt. Brits still today have to diminish the uniqueness of the creation of the USA and yet take some credit for doing so.

[@DS9TREK]

@@1who4me the Founder Father's didn't create anything new. They took English principles and wrote them down

[@theworth123]

@@1who4me British, Indian, French doesn't matter who speaks it, the truth is the truth. He's just exercising his free speech in a very historic and understandable way. Are you of European ancestry by any chance, or Asian? Perhaps just anti-British!

[@mcpanorama]

In my book The American Panorama I make the same point you do about the derivation of the US Constitution from the British. I draw particular attention to the role of Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government ina chapter based on lectures I gave in Beijing.

[@dannyd96]

What is the name if your book sir. I would be interested in getting hold of a copy.

[@KGS59]

This is not news. Of course the US Constitution stems in part from British political tradition and history. The Declaration owes much to John Locke, the Constitution, to Charles de Montesquieu. I can't fail to notice the brushing over of the frenchman, though he's central to the Framers' thinking during its their deliberations on the constitution. We get a healthy dose of English political history, the actors, situational intrigue, but failure to delve in deeper in the two political sides off US politics. The Democrats have been crucial for well over +150 yrs in steering the US away from its constitutional moorings. As for the " myth" of American exceptionalism, "these things being self evident, chiefly among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", that is ground breaking. Never before in human history has a political entity/government declared all people have unalienable rights, not granted by kings or potentates, but by the creator himself. What man gives, man can take away. What the creator gives no man can rescind. Starkey, if memory serves, only mentioned these unique God-given rights in passing. They're crucial in understanding exactly why they're unique in history of state governance and why Linoln based his Gettysburg Address exclusively on it.

[@gw7624]

@@KGS59 There's nothing 'groundbreaking' about a platitude, not matter how inspired you may feel reading it.

[@Geokinkladze]

​@@KGS59It's no surprise really that the democrats are so determined to unravel the protection of god given rights. They are mostly godless.

[@jacobrosenbaum9670]

Most enlightening commentary as always Dr. Starkey. Thank you for persisting in your efforts to educate us!

[@markantony530]

I would like to say thanks to those in academic cancel culture. Your cancellation of Dr Starkey had pushed my way such wonderful, intelligent and thought provoking material as this :-) Could you please now cancel some more eminent academics, I wish to expand my subject matter 🤣🤣

[@mikegalvin9801]

Great as always. This is what we thought the internet would produce back in its early optimistic days. I particularly liked his description of Lincoln conceiving the Gettysburg Address. Half a century ago I asked my faculty advisor for summer reading suggestions for between my freshman and sophomore years. He was a noted expert on Melville who still actually taught classes. He was also an open Trotskeyite and agnostic (lapsed Jewish as I was then a fashionably lapsed Catholic) yet he advised me to read the King James Bible cover to cover as "You can't understand English literature or culture without it." Imagine a college professor saying that now - he'd be canceled tenure or not.

[@vtbn53]

...and so he should be.

[@keithlegge6848]

Thank you to everyone who responded to my comment. I found all of the responses extremely interesting.

[@kitty6720]

Great lecture, Mr. Starkey. Very interesting and enlightening.

[@davechristianson1802]

Spot on, as I've said for years, American history is English history till 1776, and should be taught as such. I suspect Lincoln might have agreed or he might not have stolen the "of the people..." directly from Wycliffe's ordering of the church.

[@Nana-vi4rd]

I truly enjoyed listening to your talk today on the Myth of the American Constitution. I really never thought of it in the way you explained it in this video, but having listened to your words, I have to agree with you. I have often wondered after the soldiers drove the British armies out of the Colonies why those who were the driving force did not demand once again to have representation in Parliament and remain part of the UK. They I guess thought they could do better. Offering George Washington the title of King, they really deep in their hearts did not want total change. But only after he refused the title they agreed on the moniker of President. And though there were a few who wanted the other title it never came to pass. I truly believe we in the United States would have been better off like Canada ruling themselves but loyal to the Crown of England. We would be in the mess we are in now. Nana from Eastern Tennessee thank you.

[@dawnemile4974]

Dr. Starkey is truly a great professor because he inspires students to assembly their knowledge and recognize that what he is saying is absolutely true. This confirms that what we have learned is valuable.

[@shackledcitizen]

Another outstanding exposition of the situation existing today deriving from yesterday. Thanks again Dr. Starkey. You are indeed an intellectual giant.

[@mcpanorama]

I completely agree with your lecture about the American and British constitutions. There are of course written parts of the British constitution. A little-known one is Erskine May, the guide to Parliamentary procedure, which sets out the.'law, privileges, proceedings and usage' of Parliament, including how Parliament interacts with the Executive and the legislature, which your American corespondent asks about.

[@cynthiafrank5638]

Brilliant discussion that's led me to reread Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France." Thank you, Dr Starkey.

[@ManinOdessa1886]

Wonderful work David. You colour the air with music worth listening to. Please can you continue your debate outlining the ways to combat a 5th column. Thank you.

[@dragonclaws9367]

I recited it with you; we had to memorize it in seventh grade of what you would call primary school. My mother was surprised when I told her we basically operate under English law.

[@CS-cn6bh]

Endless enjoyment listening and learning from this wonderful man.

[@t5kcannon1]

A fascinating address. Thank you, Dr Starkey.

[@NSResponder]

The best history teacher I had in high school made the point that the American Revolution was in fact a conservative movement to restore the status quo that had existed in the colonies before the reign of George III. When parliament tried to increase their control of us, we rebelled.

[@tomtom21194]

I heard someone say the American Revolutionary War was Englishmen demanding their rights as Engishmen that the King had stripped them of

[@jwadaow]

It was over the rights of American landowners to raise their own taxes in stead of the English parliament.

[@jacobmiller5834]

So that is one could almost say that America became more English than England?

[@georgehetty7857]

@@kimmihaly7035 A bit like NATO you mean?

[@uingaeoc3905]

@@jwadaow It was not the UK Parliament , it was the Executive Monarchy.

[@laurenjeangreenbean6301]

From Prince George county VA, in Disputanta, (renamed after dispute of civil war) Dr Starkey, you are still amazing, we've missed you! 😀 I'd love to see u do a federalist series, but you are too valuable to be victim of ignorant assassin. Take care and cannot wait to read your book!

[@robertmyers6488]

Thanks Dr. Starkey! I am glad you pointed out the religiosity of our American political language. With the grandiosity of the myth, we in America have made our government a false god. I can't think of anything that would have been viewed with more disdain by those who formed this country than the use of the word sacred by our politicians in reference to our political institutions and their own actions. I view it as a fundamental seed of tyranny. When it is sacred it is beyond reproach. It is not the language or beliefs of rebels, or of those who are faithful to their God. A future test to your warning on the problems with written structure is how does America separate peacefully. The limits of constitution and because of our Civil War we lack a freedom that the UK had in the EU and that is a mechanism to leave. That hole and what to do about it under our surrender to courts will create unnecessary pressures for which there may not be a release. Well, at least not a peaceful one.

[@jeffharmed1616]

Thanks for your elegant and hugely important disquisition of the clash of culture with a written constitution. I often like to think that businesses are microcosms of political institutions where culture plays an equally important role, as highlighted in Charles Handy’s 1985 publication “The Gods of Management”. IMHO British culture is a highly flexible mix of “club”, “role”, “task” and “existential” cultures that British islanders had to acquire in dealing with Germanic nations (predominantly “role” culture ideally suited for efficiency roles in trade and manufacturing) and Latin nations (predominantly “existential” cultures ideally suited to the arts and esoteric occupations). The “club” culture element in our culture is predominant in the military where leaders are required to make quick decisions with as little bureaucracy as possible and it has probably lead us to break with the EU (which is German dominated) more than any other reason. Finally our “task” culture element was prominent in the industrial Revolution spearheaded by problem-solving people like Isambard Brunel. Perhaps therein lies the success of the British empire in that British imperialism had the ability to be all things to all people.

[@mcpanorama]

About principle and pragmatism, Disraeli expressed the profound truth you spoke about; 'These are my principles. If they don't like 'em, tell them I have others'. Jokey but true.

[@laurenjeangreenbean6301]

Love your comments ❤️!

[@Jamie-666]

Quality, as always.

[@ParagonRex]

Can we get a David Starkey sit down with Jacob Rees-Mogg. The pure amount of right and proper would blow out the internet!!

[@cliffhoelzer6895]

Hi David, I am American and I totally agree with your insights about the United States and its founding principles.

[@EpaminondastheGreat]

Joseph de Maistre's work _"The Generative Principle of Political Constitutions and other Human Institutions"_ , written in 1809, perfectly predicted the tremendous inefficiency of written constitutions and how absurd is the belief that politics can possibly be controlled _a priori_ with a mere piece of paper. An excellent work indeed, even if it was written by a Franch (hardly, since he was actually a Savoyard which belonged to Sardinia at the time, anyway).

[@PapistWitness]

Notice how highly Maistre regards the British constitution specifically in that essay.

[@danielgregg2530]

He nailed it.

[@helenel4126]

Very interesting thesis, Dr Starkey. Thank you. The Founding Fathers, as you say, were the inheritors of the English system of law. They knew of and appreciated the benefits of Magna Carta, trial by jury, and representative government. Frankly, it was their appreciation for the notion that, as Englishmen, they were entitled to representative government, that led them to rebel against King and Parliament. Had King George III and Lord North granted the thirteen colonies at least one representative in Parliament, and given them say in the appointment of their governors, I do not think there would have been a revolution in 1776-1781. Certainly the American system is beholden to its Anglo parent, though we do not officially have nobility (but see the Adams, Harrisons, Roosevelts, Kennedys, and Bushes among other ruling families). I think the value of the Constitution, including its Bill of Rights, is as a tether to keep the American system from drifting too far away from the notion of a democratic republic. The tripartite system of executive, legislature, and judiciary, if properly focused on law than on political desire or expediency, is meant to keep the federal government in check and overwhelming the experimentation in government of the states. In fact, the state governments are, per the Constitution, to hold the lion's share of political power and the federal government is supposed to be quite limited. The direct election of senators, enlargement of the fed by Presidents Wilson, FD Roosevelt, and LB Johnson caused the system to venture towards a pure democracy (a very dangerous form of government, as Sir Winston Churchill observed) with the majority of political power vested in the federal government. The periodic threats to the continuation of the Electoral College could, if acted upon, pull the American government further in the direction of pure democracy and control by the central, federal government. In such an instance, I fear the American experiment will more closely resemble the debacle that was the French Revolution, where it was the whim of the majority to do as they pleased towards the rest of the citizenry. Regarding the issue of abortion, if the Constitution is followed, the matter is one that must be decided by each of the fifty state legislatures (all of which are elected by their respective state's citizenry) - not by the federal judiciary, or even the federal legislature. I refer you to the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Constitution is not the cause of polarization; rather, it is the variation in religious and moral beliefs of the citizenry, who have been denied their constitutional right of decision by a usurping federal judiciary for almost half a century.

[@danielgregg2530]

He nailed it. I'm not sure you have, necessarily.

[@laurenjeangreenbean6301]

I love the quality of debate on this channel, and I enjoyed the time you spent sharing your thoughts, I have deep respect for the actual thinking and expression of your opinion is lovely, please stay thoughtful! So little consideration lately for the truthful and the thoughtful even if you get tossers, plz know that someone enjoyed it and hope you communicate again 🙂

[@DS9TREK]

Dr Starkey's point was that the Constitution creates the polarisation by giving the impression there are absolute rights and even a sense of absolute right and wrong. Even in the state legislatures compromise is hard to to come by because both sides see themselves as being on the side of absolute right. And so any compromise is seen as a step too far because it is an automatic betrayal of your absolute uncompromisable values.

[@marianotorrespico2975]

@@danielgregg2530 --- [SIGH.] | Correct. He missed the barn. Don't rub it in.

[@marianotorrespico2975]

SURE.

[@uingaeoc3905]

I think Dr Starkey, without getting in any way too 'Freudian' about it, that Myths contain essential beliefs and truths about a society and culture.

[@closethedoornow7538]

This sentence makes no sense.

[@nicholasevangelos5443]

@@closethedoornow7538 It does, actually: "Myths contain essential beliefs and truths about a society and culture." I don't agree, or only half agree. Myths conceal or misdirect from truths at least as much as they straightforwardly express them.

[@closethedoornow7538]

@@nicholasevangelos5443 read the sentence again, carefully.

[@bathhatingcat8626]

I agree

[@barrykeown7323]

David, the Madison essays insisting on an elite chamber, that is, the House of Lords, was his insistence for the US to adopt, he wrote these during the Constitutional creation process. These support very well your views about the US Constitution and how it was constructed.

[@christopherarkell9862]

OBITER - The current attempt by Sunak’s Government to introduce emergency legislation re: illegal immigrants is a PERFECT illustration of Parliament trying to undo the “separation of powers” that the Supreme Court wishes to impose on the U.K. by ruling against the Sunak Givernment’s Rwanda policy. This “emergency” legislation may well set a precedent for many other bills to include clauses in high state that if an Act of Parliament receives Royal Assent, the Supreme Court will NOT be able, on its own motion or the motion of those who disagree with the political grounds of such an Act, to meddle with it.

[@theworth123]

Even the great Stars an' Strips flag comes from an English Coat of Arms...

[@stephenarnold6359]

I was always taught that Scots law was closer to the Roman than English law. So much for my teachers, yet again..

[@kimberlyperrotis8962]

Anyone who has studied the history of US and British history and politics gives essentially equal weight to your views on this, Dr. Starkey. There is little room to doubt that the US was founded by Englishman, mostly of the gentry or aristocratic classes, who were well versed in both British politics and European history, on the basis of liberal British political institutions, thought, and their extant rights and expectations of government. Other models than English ones, like the Declaration of Arbroath, Ancient Greek and Roman ideas, systems and institutions of government, were thoroughly considered in developing the founding ideas and documents, too. The “rule of law” comes from the funeral oration of Pericles, in the 5th C. BCE., it’s either new nor unique. A lot of the US success in creating a workable and well-defined system that has lasted and been able to adapt to the changing values and needs of the people, was based on choosing the best ideas and systems from the past, mostly, but not exclusively, the English past experience. The Founding Fathers feared true democracy, so limited it in the Constitution, and wanted to preserve their property rights above almost anything else, these were not the 99%, they were the 1%. The ringing prose of destiny they employed is derived from the most persuasive English political speech tradition and was able to carry most of the 99% along with their ideals. I believe there is also a largely undervalued component in American success: its colonials and other immigrants had the benefit of the resources of an almost-entirely unexploited, large and diverse continent, and free land. They also benefited from their abuse and exploitation of African slaves and indigenous peoples. Europe had more exhausted resources, slavery there had been abolished, and most land ownership had long been in the hands of the few aristocrats. There was just less economic opportunity for most people there (we Americans include the British Isles, historically and politically, as part of Europe), America really was the New World.

[@KR-us9pj]

Fancinating, excellent and educational.

[@jamestregler1584]

And yes sir ; you are quite correct 💯

[@philipbrooks402]

Could it be argued that the Putney Debates of October-November 1647 and the exchanges between Colonel Thomas Rainsborough of The Levellers and Henry Ireton of the New Model Army were our equivalent of the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention?

[@uingaeoc3905]

No. The Putney Debates did not result in any constitutional changes. All that was settled by the Civil War and Treaty of Breda was the limit of monarchical authority. Even then both Charles II and his brother James II tried to push back with a Bourbon model and James II was removed in the Glorious Revolution to reassert the Civil War settlement. However, Monarchical Executive power was ended by the American War when opposition in Parliament to it resulted in the end of 'supply' unless the king appointed a Minister who could carry the Commons for budgets. That Minister is the First Lord of the Treasury. Once that point was conceded we had Cabinet government of Parliament rather than Privy Council government of the Monarch. So the American Revolution caused one in Britain along the same lines. but it was based on Parliamentary representation, whereas France simply exploded.

[@stevewatson6839]

No. The English Revolution failed miserably. The best that could be said of Putney was it was a stillbirth; if not an abortion.

[@keithlegge6848]

the bill of rights was not extended to the many black slaves on the American continent at the time or subsequently imported. Even in the early stages of the American civil war the cause was not for the abolition of slavery but to maintain the union.

[@uingaeoc3905]

Which would entail the Abolition as that intention was why the South seceded. May I add 'you numpty'.

[@evanm2024]

What's your point?

[@keithlegge6848]

@@uingaeoc3905 the point I am making is the bill was deeply flawed. An opportunity was missed to abolish/outlaw slavery. Instead a costly civil war was fought initially to preserve the union. Personal abuse is invariably the hallmark of someone of very low intelligence. I suggest you may have overdosed on James May.

[@keithlegge6848]

@@evanm2024 briefly an opportunity was missed by a new country to abolish slavery and lead the world in this area. Instead an old world country that is Great Britain did it. The white Americans then committed genocide against the native american Indians. All men are created equal in their own societies, but don't apply it to others.

[@tuckerbugeater]

@@keithlegge6848 quite a dubious genocide

[@cliffhoelzer6895]

Hi David, I am American and I totally agree with your insights about the United States and its founding principles. It's Foundation was seated in British governance and law. It was fined tuned into a Federal Republic that has endured. I wonder if George Washington had decided to be a king if our government my not mirror England's constitutional monarchy today!

[@leonardharris9930]

The reason Britain does not need a formal document containing a constitution for government is that we have a long history going back at the very least to Alfred the Great wherein legal precedents were set with regard to personal liberty and systems of governance framed upon the concept of the consent of the people. King Alfred clearly believed that these important historical precedents went back many centuries before his own time. The 13 colonies had likewise relied upon this long history of precendent in shaping their own legal systems and forms of government. In 1776 they were confronted with a huge dilemma. They no longer wished to be part of Great Britain and could therefore no longer rely on the British form of liberty and governance. So they had to come up with something new which was physically different but essentially the same. Which was why they needed the formality of the Declaration of Independence and a formally enshrined Constitution. It was the only way they could break away from the British monarch and his Parliament.

[@adrianlawrence5208]

Dr Starkey shifts the emphasis back from incantation (written constitution) to ritual (unspoken political behaviour/tradition).

[@CommonSwindler]

Speaking as a devoted Anglophilic American who proudly sees himself and his country as a breathing part of the centuries-long English historical thread, this video was simply music to my ears. Americans tend to think history for all intents and purposes began in 1776, and our woefully inadequate education system feeds us this poison continually. There is so much of the so-called American political creed which desperately needs fundamental reappraisals--not radical shifts to broad, nonsense on stilts principles, but simply a rediscovery of our inherent and inseparable Englishness. Soon, I hope, we in the United States will come to our senses and see that we are an English body wearing ill-fitted and increasingly frayed French clothes. As always, I enjoyed your destruction of separation of powers doctrine with the merest application of historical reality. I spend much of my days in deep study of the life, reign, and legacy of Henry II and my ears were especially pricked up when you mentioned the legalism and deference to legitimate process deeply intrinsic in English politics. In many ways, this strand is traceable to the fundamental processes which form the basis of Common Law laid down by Henry II---which daily and directly affect Americans and their fellow English-speaking peoples across the globe, if only my fellow countrymen did but know it. Or indeed, do more than just know it: recognize it and adjust accordingly to the English historical threads which quietly govern us. It is a battle which must begin with a fundamental reform of American education. This video would, I think, be a useful instrument.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

Why would anyone would be Anglophile, if anything be Anglophobe

[@uingaeoc3905]

However, we surely do not want the vast majority of our American cousins to identify as 'Anglo-American'?

[@DS9TREK]

@@uingaeoc3905 why not?

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

@@uingaeoc3905 America will now be cousin not with satanic England, but with Christian Spain

[@iVenge]

I’m with you, Dane, but your fascination with ‘Englishness’ is interesting for someone with your name. [Please take no offence; I have all five nations running through my blood (English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish _and_ Cornish), and I simply found the focus on England to be interesting for a Mac Dhiubhshíthe. 😄]

[@MaryAnneRosato]

I studied US constitutional law and remember the professor always saying how much it was based on British law.

[@brendancorrigan]

It's like that old adage, 'actions speak louder than words.' Some Colombians like to point to their lengthy, human rights focused constitution of 1991 as a testament to the country's inclusive nature. Great on paper. Quite different in reality.

[@007EnglishAcademy]

Love the lamp

[@michaelgeiger4043]

No Dr. Starkey. Not similarities or differences but a general recognition of human nature itself.

[@roberticvs]

39:00 - On "arguing principles", the argument with abortion rights in the US was that there had grown up a tradition from the 1970's called "emanations and penumbras" from which the Left was extrapolating all sorts of new rights they were using to campaign for their "protected classes" and this was brought to an end by a legal literalist interpretation; going back to the founding principles as it were, and that no such "emanations and penumbras" existed in the Constitution. This is why Roe v. Wade was revoked - it was badly written law, and it was causing the creation of other laws that were never intended, on principle.

[@1who4me]

It was plain unconstitutional. There’s nothing in the constitution that guarantees the right to murder a child in the womb. Plus, technology was limited in the 70s. We can actually see the child grow day by day via computers which tells us much more about the baby than in the 70s when such technology did not exist and most of it was guesswork.

[@l..1444]

As the (constitution) persists, a (document) A form of (Liberty) which the conclusion ends to the (enumeration) of such (Rights), the Rule of Law interprets. I do look over the fact that the constitution was written by federalists, pro government people. The expression that it can be subvert still conforming under the constitution itself. That expression that the document only would be written under the discretion that of authoritative ruling of a weak state in dispute.

[@michimelody4036]

I think the amendments make the constitution and the bill of rights a living document though. It changes over the time as it needs to which is why it's worked so well. (BTW Quakers do the same with their version of a Bible- I do not follow this religion it's just what I've learned from watching a Quaker on KZbin they have a living document as well for their friend meetings- and this is where a lot of them came to from England including my ancestors)

[@rknowling]

Dear Dr Starkey, thankyou once again for your time and effort in making your talks available. Although I strongly disagree with some of your conclusions, the insights you provide invariably make me a better socialist. I like your ideas (1) that we have a contract with both the past and future, as well as the present, and (2) that there can be useful things enshrined in tradition that are worth preserving. These make practical sense to me. However, I suggest that there are some things that tradition may preserve which are due to the selfish exercise of power. Possibly as an Anglosphere society, we want to improve the way things are done? What sort of society and people do we want to become? Then the debate becomes how to achieve these things- in a balanced and equitable fashion?- rather than labelling all change as bad. Personally, I hope that our future society is one where we grow in compassion and respect for the stranger. To quote a post from Red Six below, "it seems that the search for true principles is a worthy endeavour and must have some logic in human experience".

[@richardt.buryan832]

SPOT ON.

[@carmenfoster6912]

Never ever realized that there is a trinity over here thank you Dr.Starkey to bring it into my consciousness

[@elkpaz560]

Jonathon Sumption's Reith lectures worth a listen on this subject.

[@katherinecollins4685]

Great video

[@patriciablue2739]

Interesting points on liberal and conservative differences. I think recognition of different cultures while valuing shared humanity is a sign of outgrowing adolescence. However growth is a volatile process.

[@kapitrone]

Those natural rights ought to be self-evident.

[@adagietto2523]

On top form here!

[@melissarybb]

What an interesting addition to my landscape of thought and understanding about my country. I believe we're engaged in a struggle to literally save our Republic, a struggle which may already be over. It was disheartening to hear that the average Constitutional Republic lasts about ten years. I hope against hope that our deeply rooted way of being, the social and political contracts of our English heritage will stand us in good enough stead to prevail. Tying us together with the rest of the Anglophone world as you did gives me reasoned hope as our situation continues to plague my thoughts.

[@theworth123]

Long live America, we need you still....

[@clairerobsin]

@5:30 ...which is to say as Octavius did to Marc Antony: 'I do not cross you; but I will do so'.

[@fr.johnwhiteford6194]

If you haven't already, you should read H L Mencken essay on the Gettysburg Address. One quote from it "[T]he only thing wrong with Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address was that it was the South, not the North, that was fighting for a government of the people, by the people and for the people."

[@sirrodneyffing1]

The US flag is still an ensign flag. It echoes the Colonial flag.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

The US flag is like the McDonalds flag, nothing more than a commercial enterprise.

[@jbloun911]

US owns and controls what's left of England which isn't much in today's world.

[@arlanfellgerpilpil2234]

What I understood when the American revolution started is that the Americans fought for their rights as FREE ENGLISHMEN.

[@kightsun]

Give me my Monarchy back! -an Angry American

[@woodrow60]

The US’ Founding Fathers very consciously drew on earlier political thinking such as that of Locke and also on the work of Montesquieu, who described the British constitution without necessarily understanding it thoroughly. The majestic language of the US’ founding documents and the myth making was an essential addition to the colonies’ English tradition of self-government to unify and build the new nation

[@Digibeatle09]

Speaking from a lawyer's - rather than an historian's perspective - many written Constitutions (such as Canada's) have "break-out mechanisms" - to deal with "Emergencies" - in other words, particular (or all ) rights under the Constitution cease to be enjoyed for the duration of the "Emergency" - who declares the "Emergency" - in most cases, it's the "Executive" - can such a "break-out mechanism" be abused by the "Executive" - well - whatever about past cases - aren't we likely to see a "call" being made (as to the "severity" of the matter requiring a "Declaration") by particular "Executives" on : fuel shortages (look at Germany and Spain the past few weeks); carbon emissions into the atmosphere and lack of affordable housing, in many European countries, for the "young middle class" - not to speak of those on low incomes. I think Groucho Marx had something witty to say on the "small print" in contracts - his wit could also apply to many written Constitutions !!!!!

[@tc2334]

No matter what the topic, David will always find a way to take a dig at France. 😂 19:40

[@welshhibby]

He really doesn’t like the frogs 🐸

[@Frohicky1]

I wonder if the 'human rights' aspect of the US Constitution partly explains transatlantic slavery - the only way to deny rights is to deny humanity. Tom Sowell might have might this point , I can't remember.

[@kate2create738]

One of the few good things that any of my history courses did was never deny the English practices and certain Enlightenment thinkers greatly contributed to the soul of the American foundation. The English had a variety of values that worked, and it would be silly to not continue those certain aspects to create a cohesive society in a remote region of the world at the time. I do think that its also silly not to acknowledge certain other aspects that does, in my opinion, give credit to what I consider the soul of the American spirit. A good percentage of American history, till trains and automobiles were around, is how the far distance the US as colonies had contributed in developing certain character traits that used to be revered once upon a time. The combination of grit and an open mind optimism is a powerful duo traits that has helped a lot of our American ancestors fight for their survival. In the old world, mostly Europeans, there was a survival based on tribalism for various reasons, such as land control or witch and religion hunts that I think have made certain populations prone to do what they can to not topple the apple cart. Whereas in the US, it’s admired when there are those who study a problem and does different methods to prove whether the solution works or not. I think we’ve inherited some of these traits specifically from the English because of the history the English have had as the black sheep of Europe. The English learned quickly while developing itself that most Europeans countries were looking after themselves and so the English had a reputation in some countries that weren’t as favorable till there was more success as the British Empire. Therefore for a time, the English had the mind to try to blend in with their social peers but understood the importance of free thinking. Being in the wild of the British Isles vs the wild of the new world, I think made that trait was going to stronger in the Americas because it was required to survive as there was first no one around to help, if you needed help, you die. Simple. Hence the importance of self reliance, many of us hate how so many lost this trait. And second thing that didn’t hold us back from some critical thinking, is that socializing in the colonies had no one there to judge us. In fact, it’s this mindset that ironically won specifically the French’s heart to our favor in our Revolution war. Benjamin Franklin was an admired man who for decades spent his time in the UK, doing what he could to try to dissuade the war from happening but many people in charge were not listening to him. He later went back to the colonies, turning his support for independence, yet many Americans were skeptical of his loyalties. Later, out of desperation, Franklin was sent on a diplomatic trip to France to persuade the French to helping the US colonies to gain favor of independence. Looking back at it historical, it should have flopped. The French had no means of any gain to join the war, even if they had pleasure to find ways to get into another squabble with the British. In fact, the whole thing has contributed to escalating their own revolutionary war! Yet, what made the difference between the alliance that would change the war and thus the world I believe what Benjamin’s natural study of understanding the charm of American ingenuity. Franklin had a more relaxed approach to win the French court to at least think about the proposition, and he understood how the French were enamored with the lifestyle that was the exact opposite of theirs dressing as a more frontier man, even though he never set foot out there prior to the trip. Most people wouldn’t resort to playing dress up to gain respect, but Franklin had the social skills to understand that the French were interested in the parts of the world they likely would never have the chance to be. Another good example of American having that quality that stands out is there contrast decision with the allies during both WW’s. Such as by the time the US got involved in WWI, the European front lines were at a standstill for years. Recently learned that Americans were brining in an army that had no where near the standards it has today, not of the European counter parts. By the first WWI, the US never established the military that is common in most European powers at the time. And with that, some technology wasn’t matching up to the European view of capable weapons, such as the shot gun. Apparently the British and French laughed at the American troops till they discovered the benefits of the weapon is that it can target a wide range of the enemy within a certain distance. It’s likely it contributed greatly to taking the war off of a stand still as Americans were cleaning out the trenches of the enemy, nicknaming them as ‘Trench Sweepers.’ Germans were outraged they send a diplomatic protest. So while we Americans give credit to the British for using their tried and true structure of government, what does make it specially American is how we implement it. For our Founding Fathers, they wanted a government that has checks and balances, hence the importance of having three branches of government with their own role to pass certain laws that have been too easy for certain European countries to abuse. The reason why the US is at a critical state is because the branches of government have been out of balance, I’d argue since WWI. The problem is that we ended up becoming a leading figure in the world, when our country was developing its identity, it was with the mindset to stay away from the drama of the old world. Something that used to be valued in our immigrants till recently. Now, more people are more interested in the materialistic success they expect the country to provide, no second thought of what could be brought back into the community. I also believe that sadly for the West, Free Will has unfortunately been in tatters, hence no respect for laws and other’s rights. There is little understanding the value of the responsibility that goes with Free Will, and I think that greatly contributes to not just the downfall of the US, or the Anglo sphere, but most of the West. Pardon for the essay, probably a poorly written one, your lectures bring out the student in me to write what I can but these topics are not so easy to just write a statement. I think I could have added more but this is already too long, haha.

[@lulabellegnostic8402]

You are overlooking a FUNDAMENTAL difference between England and continental europe. In anglo saxon communities it was usual to send children into other households for their upbringing and to use primogeniture inheritance. This meant a society not shackled to family dependance and it’s ensuing evils ( feuds, intermarriage etc). Which is why we don’t have the mafia, and farmland isn’t subdivided to the point of pointlessness.

[@craigshagin5506]

The constitution as "sacred text" I think camouflages another aspect of its existence. It is an inherently practical document resolving practical political problems of its day: disputes between states over boundaries (Connecticut and Pennsylvania); admission of western territories; treating with the Indian tribes; accepting fundamental cultural differences between the states; navigation rights ion the inter state waterways; collecting debts between the states; standardizing naturalization (although it failed to define birthright citizenship); and maintaining a common defense and foreign policy. Written documents setting forth governmental structure began with the English Charters and our legal tradition - -outside of Florida at least - - retained the English view of Law and courts. While there is much about the United States that began as English, with time we very much became something else - -Americans - -adapting to our own circumstances.

[@trvaron]

The issue that is at stake is the definition of "a free people". I certainly agree that the colonists were originally rightly defined as "a free people", and during the subjection of tyranny by the Crown and during and after the Revolution were "a free people", however, it doesn't invalidate the claims in the Declaration of Independence, nor make it a "myth" (in a sense of rewriting history in favor of an idealized history). The Crown, pushed by the bankers, attempted to subjugate the "free American people" and remove from them the power to control their own money supply. And by doing so, they were also having to strip away all rights from the people to oppose the tyranny that was forced upon them, and to make them, in essence, destitute slaves. It has ALWAYS been the issue with a central bank, as you have rightly pointed out in your series on the Monarchy, when Henry I castrated the minters of the English currency for debasing it. The central banker have absolutely done the same thing. So it is no myth that Americans were being enslaved. However, unlike England, they didn't look to a monarchy for governance, but they looked to truths and ideals established by the Creator Himself. And they enthroned God as the High King in America by having His precepts as the order by which the country would function. And, it is in the heart of every man to live free following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Prior to His coming, all forms of government were, one way or another, a tyranny, and any other form of government was unstable, and didn't last over time. Following the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, all tyrannies have been unstable and haven't lasted over time, but governments respecting freedom and liberties have been the more stable forms of government. But, as you rightly point out, the English speaking cultures have nurtured and cultivated these engrained freedoms. Other cultures, due to the culture itself, have undermined the deeply rooted truths and desires for freedom, and have undermined the thriving of freedoms around the world. Revolutions still take place in those cultures, but without the cultural and religious nurturing of those values, they wither on the vine.

[@b.alexanderjohnstone9774]

English civil war was part of the process of accumulating our constitutional system. We weren't ready yet to write down a constitution giving supremacy for our laws to parliament - a constitution written then would not have been in any form we would like. We had to go through all the struggles between crown and parliament to get where we are, what Churchill called our island story, Glorious revolution and bringing in Hanover Dynasty on our terms. The British constitution is a remarkable story of accretion.

[@paulschmick869]

In 2022 the American Bill of Rights is getting a hell of a workout due to the current Administration not giving a damn whether they violate it or not.

[@charissemnotita2368]

Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero (Roman Law), Canon Law, Magna Carta, English common law, Locke, Montesquieu, Burke: American Constitution. You are an exceptionalist like Thomas Jefferson.

[@jodycarrithers6160]

I totally agree. But, we were never a monarchy nor have we ever had a "Constitutional Monarchy" and, imo, this is a HUGE difference despite our two houses being similar or our rule of law. That's the enormous difference...and it made ALL the difference.

[@chrislyne377]

It can be persuasively argued that the presidency has been an elective monarchy since its inception due to the founding fathers giving that position many of the kingly powers they erroneously believed George III to have held.

[@robhalstrom2937]

Dr. Starkey, The Declaration of Independence is a piece of advertising.

[@murrayeldred3563]

I follow the Titles according to the writings of Levity Maximus.

[@MajesticDemonLord]

For all the inflexibility that the Constitution doesn't allow, in recent times it's balwark against the neverending encroachment has warmed me to the idea of a Constitution. If Politicians could be trusted not to restrict Ancient Rights and Liberties, then an unwritten constitution is better - but they can't - so spelling it out is necessary.

[@patriciablue2739]

I think it is an appeal to achieve the higher principles embodied in the phrase. Much like any human endeavor toward potential, it is always before us. We imagine what “fair” should be but never achieve it. Likewise justice and liberty. Does that make it a myth or an aim?

[@philcooper279]

I might be wrong, but as far as I remember , Canada, Australia and New Zealand, have always been loyal to the motherland. America, on the hand, have fought two wars against England,

[@philcooper279]

Sorry mistake, anyway, as I was saying, America has fought two wars against the motherland, and, as late as 1900, the Yanks were threatening to attack England over a border dispute with Venezuela.

[@nicholasevangelos5443]

@@philcooper279 Hell, they did attack Britain (by crashing its currency) over the Suez war of 1956.

[@evinnra2779]

Australia did have a referendum asking people if we want to remain in the existing system of constitutional monarchy or not, and we chose to remain. Thank God!

[@garylancaster8612]

And they only gained their "independence" by fighting against and killing fellow Englishmen with the help of England's greatest and oldest enemy, the French. The 4th of July should be known as Treason Day.

[@Problembeing]

Q: What is the difference between your definition of ‘principle’ and the definition of ‘tradition’. Are both not subject to the paralysis of reason?

[@johnpeate4544]

See the work of Michael Oakshott, his critique of rationalism and the book Oakshott on Rome and America _The political systems of the Roman Republic were based almost entirely on tradition, “the way of the ancestors”, rather than on a written constitution. While the founders of the American Republic looked to ancient Rome as a primary model for their enterprise, nevertheless, in line with the rationalist spirit of their age, the American founders attempted to create a rational set of rules that would guide the conduct of American politics, namely, the US Constitution.These two examples offer a striking case of the ideal types, famously delineated by Michael Oakeshott in “Rationalism in Politics” and elsewhere, between politics as a practice grounded in tradition and politics as a system based on principles flowing from abstract reasoning.This book explores how the histories of the two republics can help us to understand Oakeshott’s claims about rational versus traditional politics. Through examining such issues we may come to understand better not only Oakeshott’s critique of rationalism, but also modern constitutional theory, issues in the design of the European Union, and aspects of the revival of republicanism._ _Gene Callahan’s Oakeshott on Rome and America brings Oakeshott’s famous critique of Rationalism to bear upon the concrete historical cases cited in the title. The book’s main thrust is to engage American political self-understanding. Nonetheless, the contrast with Rome is important in several ways: first, the American founders explicitly compared their founding with Rome’s and tried to avoid the pitfalls of classical republican polities; second, in the twentieth century as America became a global hegemon, comparisons have frequently been made between America and the Roman empire; and third, Oakeshott mentions Rome as an exemplar of pragmatic politics and the rule of law, and he points to Rome’s steady legal traditions as a key element of its political character and a reason for the republic’s long success._ _Rationalism is the name Oakeshott gives to a modern and deformed understanding of knowledge and its relation to action. He is not opposed to reason, and is in fact a staunch-one might even hazard the adjective Aristotelian-defender of practical wisdom. The Rationalist inverts the order of practical thought and action: he thinks abstract principles, which Oakeshott argues can only arise out of reflection on practice, stand at the beginning and give guidance and clarity to practical affairs. The typical Rationalist move, then, is down-market Cartesianism: couple a zealous skepticism against what is old with a credulous devotion to what is “unprejudiced” and new. The typical quality of Rationalist politics is that political discourse turns more and more to the articulation of principles, also called “ideals,” which will be said to lead deductively to certain policies. These deductive schema relating principles to political conclusions are ideologies. Opponents do not merely hold different opinions, they are, demonstrably, wrong. Would that it were hard to find examples of this political style in America today._ _Oakeshott’s refusal to embrace deductive politics is rooted not only in epistemology, but in a concern for the quality of our political discourse. He writes:_ _This craving for demonstrative political argument may make us discontented with ordinary political discourse, which, because it is not demonstrative, we may be tempted to regard as a species of unreason. This would be a disastrous error. It is an error, because discourse which deals in conjecture and possibilities and the weighing of circumstantial pros and cons is reasoning, and it is the only sort of reasoning appropriate to practical affairs. In this matter, Aristotle and Isocrates are better guides than Plato and Marx. And it would be disastrous, because it would tend to bring political discourse into such disrepute that we would become inclined to do without it altogether-to give up reflection and argument because they could not be demonstrative. Or it might discourage the only sort of intellectual effort capable of improving the quality of our political discourse. (Oakeshott, 1991, RIP, 95)_ Continued…

[@johnpeate4544]

Continued.. _Even a fervent admirer of America has to admit she is a Rationalist. Examples of Rationalistic utterance leap off every page of America’s Founding documents and resonate through her history. Contemporaries are more likely to debate the content of our creed than the character of our country._ _It should not be thought that all Rationalisms are equal. Even good political practices, like those connected with the preservation of liberty, have been rendered in abstract ideological language. A classically liberal ideology, such as we find in Locke, is surely preferable to the utopian Rationalisms that ravaged Europe in the twentieth century. The problem is that Rationalism may short-change political discourse and corrode our political culture; or, it may be the symptom of a culture already losing its vitality._ _Practical knowledge, the alternative to Rationalism, disconcerts anyone accustomed to thinking in terms of principles and infallible ideologies. Without principles are we not unmoored, adrift? The temptation to confound the faint-hearted with existentialist verve is almost irresistible, and one might fly fancy with images of sailing boundless and bottomless seas. But a better response is to direct attention to any sort of truly artful and habitual conduct. Look at what experienced practitioners actually do-from cobblers to diplomats. They make decisions, resolve difficulties, negotiate novel and changing situations (no two worn shoe rands are identical), largely in terms of well-tried and proven methods. But also they improvise when necessary. Their improvisations come from their habits, not from having traded their habits for a set of the latest ideals._ _In accord with Oakeshott, Callahan sees the Roman republic as exhibiting the pragmatic political style. Its liberties were safeguarded not by a written constitution but through reverence, “from having been sanctioned by the accumulated wisdom of generations of practice.” Having no creed or written code, Rome had a clear enough sense of its own character to absorb changes, to innovate, and to endure external challenges. Explaining that this flexibility is different from a potentially hazardous drift, Callahan draws upon Voegelin’s concept of existential representation, noting some connections to Oakeshott and Charles Taylor’s similar conceptions: “Only when a society’s political institutions are an organic product of a widely shared and existentially satisfying conception of mankind’s place in the universe will they successfully and stably order social life.” And so, faced with the counterexample of the “Roman revolution” Callahan says that the Republic’s fall did not occur because of a lack of theoretical principles to guide it, but due to changing social conditions, and the increasingly radical departures from tradition by the Gracchi and their supporters, which eventually could not be contained._ _Could a rational system of governance have been devised that would have prevented this? First, Callahan points out that in an atmosphere of disintegrating trust, recourse to abstract principles, even when these attempt to resurrect the past, was not effective. From the time of Gaius Marius to Caesar’s crossing the Rubicon, defenders of the republic relied on more dogmatic and explicit formulations of principle. Nevertheless, the process of disintegration proved unstoppable. Callahan also points out that in America, where such a rational system was attempted it took less that twenty years for major crises to break out that showed the inadequacy of the Constitution to settle problems cleanly and clearly, without recourse to interpretative maneuver. Several of Jefferson’s actions and the election of 1800 are examined to show that, just as a pragmatic polity in Rome failed, a rationally constructed polity across the Atlantic could not avoid resort to pragmatic and “contingency-driven” politics._ _The Roman republic endured over half a millennium. That is significant prima facieevidence that a written constitution and a rationally derived creed based upon a “modern science of politics” is not actually necessary for the survival of a republic or for its enjoying a free character. Considering that Rationalism is a mistaken account of what happens in human practices, it is not actually possible. Still, it is possible to attempt to be Rationalistic. And this is a curious point in the American tradition. The American founders had greater practical experience and deeper historical knowledge than they usually admitted. They possessed intimate knowledge of a rich and complex past of political practice and thought. Their success arose out of this practical knowledge rather than the adoption of rational principles. Yet, true to the spirit of their anti-traditional age, they spoke as Rationalists, and abstracted their traditions into a creed. Their preference for a Rationalistic idiom is unfortunate, because it means that instead of (for example) being encouraged by Hamilton to study the past, he gives us license to despise “old parchments and musty records.”_ _Callahan’s study, by applying Oakeshott’s analysis of an epistemological error to actual political histories, raises challenging and important questions. Among these is whether a nation can long subsist which believes its meaning is comprehended in its devotion to a principle. In placing our sacred trust in abstract ideals, do we risk forgetting that freedom is the freedom of actual individuals living in actual communities? It remains an open question whether being more steadfastly ideological will help America or conservatives who care passionately about liberty. Have our crises, including ideological crises, cut so deeply as to lead to our disintegration, or will a Rationalistic nation prove capable of surviving through a millennium of contingencies? The appeal of principles is that they are pure. If there be any disharmony between what we hold and what we do or suffer, we can always seek refuge in the ideal. We are always arriving. We can parlay the problem of induction into a defense: the sunrise poses no puzzle; we are certain it will be morning in America._

[@Capt.Thunder]

Starkey, as a Brit myself, while you do have a lot of good points and good criticisms, it is easy to shoot down your premise by comparing the rights that Americans have vs the rights that the rest of the Anglosphere has. ~Free Speech (America ✓; everyone else X) ~Free Assembly (America ✓; everyone else X) ~Right to Bear Arms (America ✓; everyone else X) ~Self-Defence Rights (America ✓; everyone else X) ~(a lot of) Privacy Rights (America mostly; everyone else not really) A lot of those mentioned are very big deals. Monumental cultural conceptions. Yet our English technique of "fudging" everything has resulted in these rights basically becoming watered down to the point where they are nonexistent. That is why you get hate crimes (a communist notion that is inherently unenglish) on the books. This is why Canada, Australia and NZ turned into militarised police states over Covid. Arguably the UK did as well, certainly in the Celtic parts of the country, as the Celts don't have English culture. Tbh, even England, Canada, Australia and NZ are barely English in their culture any more. They are cesspits of French Revolutionary ideas. *This is because Culture is downstream from Law.* The vast majority of people align themselves to the laws which are enforced and on the books. That is why people now think you have a right to put people in prison why you feel offended in this country, when older generations still believe in sticks and stones. The culture changed to match the laws. The Constitution is a legal document, and it is very difficult to change. Because it has been given a sacred status, because it was difficult to tear up institutionally without overwhelming agreement, and because it was in line with the original values that the country was founded on and cemented as a tradition, that is why it has endured where all of the copies penned in banana republics failed. The main issue with Roe v. Wade in particular is that some judicial activists decided to legislate from the bench (which is not their place, and undermines everything), and that causes this kind of tension that you speak of. It was never formally established in the Constitution, it was therefore always a states rights issue, regardless of your personal stance on it. It has also been overhyped for political purposes, given that all a woman has to do is catch a flight to Virginia and they can basically kill the baby post-birth.

[@robhalstrom2937]

Free speech is only protected in the sense that congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. It doesn’t say anything about executive orders. It doesn’t say anything about judicial bias. It doesn’t say anything about psychological manipulation. Free speech means a lack of obstacles for a speaker to share their thoughts to listeners. Obstacles abound. Like work. Like children, like deliberate misinformation. Infuriatingly more, a professional, well developed, and accurate message shaped by long periods of humble, focused work may very well be something of importance and fail to reach those who could use it.

[@Capt.Thunder]

@@robhalstrom2937 We aren't even allowed to insult other people online in this country any more without the danger of being deemed grossly offensive and getting a knock on the door from the cops. We only have one small square in the country where free speech is permitted in public, and the police have historically blocked access to it to prevent dissidents from speaking. I think you still have it much better in the US, because usually you can get a court to rule in your favour eventually, if you have the money to go through it. Here? What does Starkey's "unwritten constitution" have? Nothing, that's what.

[@ColonelMuppet]

Free speech is the right to be offensive

[@mothermovementa]

He left England so parliament said he'd voluntarily abdicated😂

[@WilliamXucla]

Let me say at the outset, professor Starkey...You are an amazing intellect and the many videos of yours that I have discovered in the last 24 hours have enhanced tremendously my viewing of your Coronation of Charles III...Then, upon seeing this one, I eagerly watched it and, while you are always brilliantly enlightening, I am slightly disappointed...I mean to say...for someone so meticulously encyclopedic...I was surprised you left out a CRUCIAL word in the Preamble of our Constitution: PURSUIT...In America, WE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO HAPPINESS...that is at the root of the modern American problem [i.e., gay "rights"...women's "rights"...etc...] All we have is the rights we are born with by the nature of having a VOLITIONAL consciousness...The idea that we have a "right" to happiness, means we have the "right" to sacrifice anyone to obtain that "happiness"...Jefferson got it right: we have only the right to the "PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS"...no more...no less...Then, professor, I noticed you waived off the amendments to our Constitution as...what did you say?..."AND ALL THE REST OF IT"?...Without our amendments we would not exist today...I mean to say: only property owners would be able to vote ; many of us would be indentured slaves, each considered to be 3/5 of a human being; we would be told our rights come from government instead of from God...and so on...I will give you this...WITHOUT ENGLAND WE WOUD NOT EXIST...Thank you, professor !!...

[@garysymons3930]

A lot of the constitution in the uk is written in miscellaneous documents and laws but they are not codeified as it were in one document called the Constitution . However it seems to me that the essence of government is the sovereignty of parliament in that parliament can make any law it likes , but after Brexit the uk was no longer in that position ,

[@johnpeate4544]

See the work of Michael Oakshott. Oakeshott is perhaps best known as the foe of a political vice called “rationalism,” and it is a vice because, in believing that all knowledge is technical, it fails to recognize the crucial role of what Oakeshott calls “practical knowledge.

[@kathrynaston6841]

Well argued. Isn’t it interesting that almost all of our power structures - church, state, nations, either slowly, or by force tend to flow towards a similar (and I would argue prudent and often necessary) in order to “work” within the existing population. The Catholic Church CHANGED slowly after the Protestant movement. It gradually conceded that the sales of indulgences, the failure to have the Bible in the language of the people, and even its king-like government of the Papal States. England isn’t a monarchy, per se. Not like it used to be. Over time, it’s become symbolic. As the populous became more educated, more independent, and more involved in shaping their world, England became less absolute monarchy, and the US president lost more and more absolute power.

[@rworded]

The Senate sbouldn't be an elected body, the representives should annoit them.

[@Wilkins_Micawber]

David speaks of inherited political freedoms of Americans from England, at a time when there was no universal suffrage in England. Few people in England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland could vote. Voting was strictly for the property owning class.

[@jonathannash3617]

A very suggestive and stimulating talk. However, doesn't Dr Starkey refute himself by suggesting that the English Revolution ended in 1660, but then going on to talk briefly about the Glorious Revolution as if it were an afterthought? I think the better analysis is that the English Revolution ended with the Glorious Revolution and the Bill of Rights, a document which is still cited occasionally in current legal cases as being a governing document for the rights of citizens. The Glorious Revolution attempted to fix the relationship between the Crown (sc. executive power) and the citizens in a way which was fundamentally different from what the Stuarts had tried to achieve (apeing notions of the "divine right" of kings). What was left at the margins was the precise scope of the Royal prerogative, which again has been tested in court cases over the centuries, and was finally consigned to almost complete irrelevance by Miller No. 2 which denied the right of the Crown to prorogue Parliament at will. That was a decision, right or wrong, which suffered from being made in a great rush and with almost no submissions about the historical place of the prerogative in English history: it was enormously consequential, in ways which have not yet been understood.

[@ColonelMuppet]

That decision should have condemned the Supreme Court experiment to history. You are quite right, unless we dump it the possible constitutional repercussions and outcomes are dreadful

[@KPC-123]

"All men are created equal.."? As in no Lords or Nobles?? Sounds like a worthy project, no? I wonder what those Lords and Nobles would say? Perhaps such things like "Myths" and "Religious sounding language"?

[@lydiamalone1859]

Those in the political sphere are supposed to be public servants. People who served actually lost money.

[@jbloun911]

David likes being called 'sir', an avid Monarchist

[@Problembeing]

Q: How can we truly be free without having a clear understanding of what our rights actually are, especially now when peoples access to statuary legal advice has been so woefully curtailed in a judicial system that is mired in ambiguity, legalese and contradictory precedents.

[@Gilboy63]

Wittgenstein himself could not have put it any better. Or Hume for that matter.

[@rworded]

All men are created equal under the eyes of the Lord, not that all men ARE equal.

[@TeresaE116]

If David Starkey is available to teach someone like me because “he’s been cancelled” (𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘢 - 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦!), I’m sorry for them and thankful for my own great luck. As an American, he’s exactly right about everything he’s said. Thank you, Sir.