Natural rights : a criticism of some political and ethical conceptions / by David G. Ritchie.

  • David George Ritchie
Date:
1916
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Natural rights : a criticism of some political and ethical conceptions / by David G. Ritchie. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    24/328 page 4
    gotten, first, that the Declaration of Independence (1776) had alieady named the natural and u unalienable rights,” in virtue of which the American colonists justified their rebellion against the British Government and their existence as a group of leagued but independent States : and second, that the Constitution of the United States—even that of 1787 was regarded as only drawing closer the bonds of alliance between States which were still supposed to retain, in many respects, their sovereign rights. The Constitution of the Union only contains the terms of the federal compact.1 It declares the rights of the States as against the Federal Government. The appropriate place for the declaration of the rights of the indi- vidual citizen is not in the federal constitution, but in the consti- tutions of the several States.2 And in most of the Constitutions which originated after 1^76 (some of the States retaining for a considerable period—Ehode Island as late as 1842—their old colonial charters), there is a Declaration, or Bill of Rights, exactly analogous to the French declaration. The “ Bill of Rights ” of Virginia (June 12th, 1776) may be taken as typical: it has served as the model for many similar declara- tions, adopted after American independence had been secured. “ Other colonies,” says Bancroft, “ had framed bills of rights in reference to their relations with Britain: Virginia moved from charters and customs to primal principles; from a narrow altercation about facts to the contemplation of immutable truth. She summoned the eternal laws of man’s being to pro- test against all tyranny.” 3 These words are worth pondering, and also the words of the “ Bill of Rights ” itself. They may serve as a wholesome warning against the habit of explaining political institutions and political ideas by facile theories of race-difference. As M. Paul Janet has well said, “ If the French Revolution has lasted longer and been more violent than the English 1 See below, pp. 241, 242. Franklin had the American State Constitutions translated into French, and presented them to Louis XVI. Cf. Moncure Conway Life of Paine, I. p. 290. ’ J 3 History of the United States (ed. 5), VIII. p. 883. In M. Paul Janet’s Introduction ” to the 3rd edition of his Histoire de la Science Politique, the contrast drawn by M. Boutmy between the French and American Constitutions in this matter of natural rights, seems to me very effectively criticised. J
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3