But the most important thing to Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, and others who studied their culture was their institutes of constitutional government which were almost identical with those of ancient Israel.
The Anglo-Saxons first brought their culture to Britain around 450 A.D. when two brothers, Hengist and Horsa, were invited by the king of Kent to bring their relatives to southern Britain and fight off the king’s enemies. The Anglo-Saxons were not only successful in this military venture, but they liked Britain so well they decided to stay. Before long they had virtually taken over the island of Britain and changed its name to England (Anglo-land or Engel-land).
Jefferson Studied the Anglo-Saxons in Their Own Language
As we have already pointed out, Thomas Jefferson became remarkably proficient in five languages. One of them was the language of his ancestors, the Anglo-Saxons. He learned this language so he could study their laws in their original tongue. They not only had the major elements of People’s Law, but they were organized and governed by principles similar to those of Moses. He made copies of the Anglo-Saxon laws and sent some of them to friends, along with his own translation.
His admiration for these laws is expressed in a letter to Edmund Pendleton [page 55] dated August 13, 1776, when he wrote:
“Are we not better for what we have hitherto abolished of the feudal system: Has not every restitution of the ancient Saxon laws had happy effects? Is it not better now that we return at once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man, as it stood before the eighth century?” [Julian P. Boyd, ed., The Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 20 vols. By 1982 (Princeton, J.J.: Princeton University Press, 1950-), 1:492]
Some Interesting Aspects of the Anglo-Saxon Culture
Many have thought the Yinglings, or Anglo-Saxons, included a branch of the ancient Israelites because they came from the territory of the Black Sea (where the Ten Tribes disappeared), and because they preserved the same unique institutes of government as those which were given to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. But whether related or not, there is certainly irrefutable evidence of a cross-fertilization of laws and cultural values between these two peoples. [See Colin Rhys Lovell, English Constitutional and Legal History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1962)]
Here are some examples:
1. The Anglo-Saxons considered themselves a commonwealth of freemen.
2. They organized themselves into units identical to those of the Israelites.
a. The head of 10 families was called a tithing-man.
b. The head of 50 families became an obscure office but may have been a vil-man, or head of the village.
c. The head of 100 families was called the hundred man.
d. The head of 1,000 families was called the eolderman, later shortened to earl. The territory occupied by 1,000 families was called a shire, and the administrative assistant to the earl was called the “shire reef.” We pronounce it sheriff.
3. All laws, as well as the election of leaders, had to be by the common consent of the people.
4. Authority granted to a chieftain in time of war was extremely limited and was taken away from him as soon as the emergency had passed.
5. Their system of justice was based on payment of damages to the victim rather than calling it a crime against the whole people.
When law books of both England and colonial America were crammed with bad procedures, unjust practices, and cruel punishments, the statutes of the Anglo-Saxons came to the Founders like a breath of fresh air. Here were “ancient principles” which could be employed to the advantage of the Founders as they developed their new success formula. To better appreciate the perspective, we will pause to examine the Anglo-Saxon precepts more closely.
Summary of the Institutes of the Anglo-Saxons
Sharon Turner summarizes the substance of the Anglo-Saxon law as it existed up to the time of the Norman Conquest in 1066. As we have noted, Thomas Jefferson saw that the laws of the Anglo-Saxons were beginning to erode after the eighth century; nevertheless, a great many of the best features survived and were still in operation right up until the Norman Conquest.
Even though many years of war had compelled the Anglo-Saxons to confederate together under a king, he was still an elected monarch rather than a hereditary king and, initially, he was closely controlled by the Witen (the Anglo-Saxon parliament).
But as with kings in all ages, the centralization of power was beginning to concentrate extensive authority by 1066 A.D. He was not only the chief executive of the nation but played an essential role in the legislature. He received and expended all taxation and was even the center and source of authority for all jurisprudence. He was commander-in-chief of all the armies and when the Witen was summoned it was at his discretion. While it was in session, he presided over the proceedings.
The full name of the Anglo-Saxon parliament was the Witena-gemot which is usually referred to by the shorter name of Witen. The membership included representatives from each of the towns, regions, or clans as well as those who had been honored by the king for valiant military service. It also included the Thanes (major landowners) and Milites or knights.
The highest orders of nobility, which were granted for distinguished military service, were not designed for an aristocracy but were open to the lowest classes.
These titles included the title of Eolderman (Earl), Hold, Heretoch, Eorl, and Thegn or Thane. These titles were personal honors and were not passed on to the noblemen’s successors.
Of course, land granted by the king for distinguished service was permanently retained by the recipient and could be transferred to his heirs. However, there was no feudal system of primogeniture which required that the nobleman’s estate be assigned to an oldest son.
Any person holding land from the king was obligated to build castles and bridges and serve the king for a limited time in his military expeditions.
The Freemen
The foundation of the Anglo-Saxon society was the freemen. They looked upon the king as their sovereign and defender but were subject to no other master except those whom they chose to serve.
The highest order of freemen was the Milites or knights. A freeman became a member of this order by the “investment of the military belt.” He then became part of a privileged class that lived on the lands of the nobility but could not serve in the national army as a commanding officer unless appointed as such.
Beginning of a Class of Bondsmen by 1066
During the latest states of Anglo-Saxon history, there had developed a substantial class of slaves, bondsmen, and others who were obligated to fulfill some degree of servility or compulsory employment. Nevertheless, the law protected them from abuse and provided certain regulations to promote their welfare and ultimate emancipation through good conduct.
Property could not be taxed without the consent of the Witen.
All freemen were required to attach themselves to a tithing, which was a unit of administration originally consisting of ten families. Each member of a tithing had to put up a bond for his general good behavior and conduct himself according to certain regulations. (It’s interesting that the very concept of a tithing, meaning one-tenth, comes from the Hebrews.)
Reparation to the Victim
Originally a person found guilty of an offense was required to provide compensation only to the victim; however, the confederation under a permanent king resulted in additional fines going to the sovereign to cover the expense of “keeping the peace.”
A value was placed on each individual according to his place in the social structure. This was called his “Were.” An additional value was placed on each individual to protect his peace and security. This was called a “Mund.” Offenders were fined proportionate to the amount of injury inflicted on a person’s “life or limb” (his Were) or his peace and privacy (his Mund).
A high premium was placed on the personal liberty of each free subject so long as he was not violating an
y law. Heavy penalties were imposed on those who unlawfully imprisoned or restrained a freeman.
A person accused of a crime was permitted to defend himself by producing a certain number of his neighbors who were willing to swear that it was their complete conviction that he was innocent. This procedure was intended to impress on each person the necessity of maintaining a reputation of good character in his neighborhood so that in case of false accusation, his neighbors would come to his defense. Even today the use of “character witnesses” is a significant part of our judicial system.
The Jury System
The Anglo-Saxons also employed trial by jury, but there is no record of the time when it was first inaugurated. It may have been instituted anciently or introduced by the Danish colonists who are known to have employed the jury system from remote antiquity.
Property rights were held to be sacred, and strict rules were employed concerning tenure and the transfer of titles.
Every man was required to honor the rights of others, just as he expected to have his own rights honored.
Judges were placed under obligation to carefully evaluate each offense and make the penalty commensurate with the seriousness of the crime.
All persons of means were emphatically enjoined to aid the poor, ameliorate the distress of widows and orphans, and treat strangers with kindness and fairness.
The Witen (or Parliament) was under obligation to make certain that the laws of the land conformed with the revealed laws of God. Any which did not were abolished and renounced as being unconstitutional and void. The Witen was also under obligation to see that every man, whether rich or poor, was fully protected in his common rights and treated with equal solicitude and care.
Social Justice and the General Welfare
It was a fundamental precept that all laws must be for the “general welfare” of the people, collectively and individually. Frequently the Witen passed laws favorable to the emancipation of slaves, even though this was often done contrary to the wishes of those who held them in a state of involuntary servitude.
A fundamental requirement of the law was that all persons who had been offended should have the opportunity to petition for redress. In fact, there were heavy penalties enacted against shiremen or judges who refused or neglected to hear the petitions of the aggrieved.
The victim of an offense was not to avenge his injury personally until after legal justice had been sought.
The natural liberty of each individual was only to be restricted by those laws which were for the social good of the whole people.
To protect the life and liberty of all freemen, there was an established catalogue of penalties for the loss of each limb or any other act of maiming or injury to an individual.
There were laws to prohibit fighting and personal violence, as well as laws to punish robbery and rapine, which the “powerful and war-like” members of society sometimes imposed on weaker or unsuspecting victims.
There were heavy penalties for trespass, whether against a person’s house or his private lands.
Every land owner was required to make hedges and fences to keep his cattle from injuring his neighbor.
The observance of Sunday as a day of rest “from all worldly labor” was strictly enforced.
The law provided that there is a “natural equality of man” which must not be violated by those in power.
To protect the various levels of nobility and civic responsibility among the people, the punishment for offenses increased with the rank of the person offended. It was presupposed that the higher the rank, the greater the offense against the welfare of the people whom he served.
Channels of Justice
Each dimension and class of people had a procedure for the protection of their rights through designated channels, where redress could be sought. Each channel was kept distinct from interference by the others.
Not only was the property and life of the individual protected but his character was as well. Any slanderous words were subject to punishment.
The rights of women received special protection under the law. Upon the death of a father, the mother received the custody and care of the children. Women were protected by law from violence and abuse or forced marriages.
Parents were held responsible for any offense committed by their children against others.
Any person convicted of perjury was thereafter disqualified as a witness.
Every man was protected in his right to hunt in his own woods or fields. [Abstracted from Sharon Turner, The History of the Anglo-Saxons, 5th ed. (London: Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green, and Longman, 1836), pp. 221-225.]
To the Founders, these principles seemed far advanced in both spirit and context compared with those which prevailed in any country of their day, including England.
As we indicated earlier, when Jefferson reflected on these ancient principles he could not help asking the leader in the Virginia House of Delegates, “Is it not better now that we return at once into that happy system of our ancestors, the wisest and most perfect ever yet devised by the wit of man?”
Classical Studies of the Founders
It will be apparent from what we have seen thus far that, collectively speaking, the minds of the Founders were like a huge vacuum cleaner, sucking up knowledge of every sort from every available source.
When it came to politics, the minds of the leading Founders were as far ranging and profound as any collection of advanced scholars in the field of political studies today. Their correspondence, speeches, and commentaries disclose a penetrating understanding of both ancient and modern writers.
Often the Founders read the classics in their original language. They were familiar with Plato’s Republic and his Laws; with Aristotle’s Essays on Politics; with the political philosophy of the Greek historian, Polybius; with the great Roman defender of republican principles, Cicero; with the legal commentaries of Sir Edward Coke; with the essays and philosophy of Francis Bacon; with the essays of Richard Hooker; with the dark forebodings of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan; with the more optimistic and challenging Essays on Civil Government, by John Locke; with the animated Spirit of the Laws, by Baron Charles de Montesquieu of France; with the three-volume work of Algernon Sidney, who was beheaded by Charles II in 1683; with the writings of David Hume; with the legal commentaries of Sir William Blackstone; and with the economic defense of a free market economy by Adam Smith called The Wealth of Nations.
The Founders knew their classics. They also knew their history — Biblical, Greek, Roman, European, and American. From all of these valuable sources they sorted out what they considered to be the best and most enduring for the prosperity and peace of a free people under a republican system of self-government.
Appenix B
The Secret to America’s Strength
By W. Cleon Skousen
An address to law school students, 1981
The Role of Religion in the Founding Fathers’ Constitutional Formula
Americans of the Twentieth Century often fail to realize the supreme importance which the Founding Fathers originally attached to the role of religion in the structure of the unique civilization which they hoped would emerge as the first free people in modern times. Many Americans also fail to realize that the Founders felt the role of religion would be as important in our own day as it was in theirs.
In 1787, the very year the Constitution was written and approved by Congress, that same body of Congress passed the famous Northwest Ordinance. In it they outlawed slavery in the Northwest territory, they enunciated the basic rights of citizens in language similar to that which was later incorporated in the Bill of Rights, and they emphasized the essential need to teach religion and morality in the schools. Here is the way they said it:
“Article 3: Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” (Basic American Documents, Littlefield, Adams & Co., Ames, Iowa, p. 66)<
br />
Notice that formal education was to include among its responsibilities the teaching of three important subjects:
1. Religion, which might be defined as a “fundamental system of beliefs concerning man’s origin and relationship to the cosmic universe as well as his relationship with his fellow men.”
2. Morality, which may be described as “a standard of behavior distinguishing right from wrong.”
3. Knowledge, which is “an intellectual awareness and understanding of established facts relating to any field of human experience or inquiry, i.e., history, geography, science, etc.”
We also notice that “religion and morality” were not required by the Founders as merely an intellectual exercise, but they positively declared their conviction that these were essential ingredients needed for “good government and the happiness of mankind.”
Washington Describes the Founders’ Position
The position set forth in the Northwest Ordinance was reemphasized by President George Washington in his Farewell Address:
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion ... reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.
“It is substantially true that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government.” (Basic American Documents, pp. 108-109)
The Teaching of Religion in Schools Restricted to Universal Fundamentals
Having established that “religion” is the foundation of morality and both are essential to “good government and the happiness of mankind,” the Founders then set about to exclude the creeds and biases or dissensions of individual denominations so as to make the teaching of religion a unifying cultural adhesive rather than a divisive apparatus. Jefferson wrote a bill for the “Establishing of Elementary Schools” in Virginia and made this point clear by stating:
5000 Year Leap Page 27