Category: Liberty

Introduction to Patrick Henry’s Revolutionary Speech

During the late 18th century, a large-scale revolution swept across North America, eventually forming the United States. One of the most prominent advocates of this revolution was a man named Patrick Henry, who gave a defining speech at the Second Virginia Convention, pushing many to revolt against the British Crown. This convention was attended by many important figures including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Furthermore, this convention was attended by members that did not necessarily side with Henry’s ideology. Considering those circumstances, it was crucial that Henry used various oratory tactics to win them over. The strategic use of language, tone and imagery in Henry’s speech not only postures Henry as a confident, it also empowers his audience with confidence, sparks anger, promotes urgency, and provokes anger, which all in all further urge his audience in favor of the revolt.

Establishing Trust and Confidence

Throughout his speech, Henry postures himself as a trustworthy, respectful, and confident speaker. A significant example of this is when Henry states “Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason and an act of disloyalty towards the Majesty of Heaven”. This implies that although he fears offending his audience by giving his controversial opinions, but it is God’s intention that he does so. By saying this, he borrows credibility from a higher power, making him appear more trustworthy to his audience. Along with using borrowed credibility, Henry also displays an assertive tone when he exclaims “Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”, while he also uses an either-or fallacy to mislead his audience into agreeing with him. Apart from re-emphasizing that he is acting on behalf of God when he exclaims “Forbid it, Almighty God!”, his use of the assertive phrase “Give me liberty or give me death!” echoes his self-assured tone by displaying the two absolutes, presenting himself as a confident figure among his hesitative audience. Besides borrowed credibility and an assertive tone, Henry also lowers himself to his audience to show subservience in parts of his speech. Through the statement “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience”, Henry shows humbleness as he claims “I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided”, but also steadfastness by the response to the previous claim “and that is the lamp of experience”. Using borrowed credibility from a higher power, an assertive tone, and a clear display of subservience, Henry emits confidence and postures himself as a trustworthy speaker. This combination of ideas allows him to be more agreeable and credible, which confirms his credibility in the eyes of his audience.

Empowering the Audience

Not only does Henry establish himself as confident speaker, he empowers his audience to be more confident as well. One tactic Henry uses in order to gain this emotional appeal is through his use of premising, and an instance of this is as he says “Is this part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?”. Henry uses rhetorical questions at the end to lead his audience into agreeing with him. By premising that the audience must be either blind or deaf to not agree with him, he logically concludes that his audience must take his side. “Sir we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us”. By incorporating Christian references and ensuring the power of the American people, Henry uses confidence to persuade his audience to revolt. Henry claims how the American people are invincible since they are “armed in the holy cause of liberty”, which promotes strength in confidence in his audience. Henry goes on to say that the American people aren’t weak if they make a proper use of this current opportunity and take a leap of faith to rebel against the British. Additionally, the use of definitive and assertive words such as “are” instead of shallow and suggestive words such as “perhaps” and “might” further displays his confidence and provokes confidence from the audience. Furthermore, Henry continues this use of assertive language in the following instance “If we wish to be free – if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending– if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight!”. By employing a tone abundant in strong words and exclamations such as “abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained” and “we must fight!”, Henry not only explains why they must fight this war, but also uses this strong and bold language to provide confidence for his audience, as people are more likely to agree with a confident and assertive speaker rather than a passive and hesitant speaker. Besides using a self-confident tone to empower the audience, Henry also premises that if the audience “wishes to be free”, they “must fight”, which logically concludes that the audience must agree with Henry, further bolstering his overarching purpose of gaining his audience’s approval.

Instilling Fear and Urgency

After proving his confidence and instilling trust in his audience, Henry continues to push toward his purpose by generating fear in the minds of his audience. He begins by stating how “They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging”, whilst recalling that the British troops in American territory. The mention of chains prompts the audience to subconsciously think of slavery and oppression. Henry uses the words “bind” and “rivet” to enhance this imagery, thus creating a horrifying vision of an enslaved America in the minds of the audience, instigating the presence of fear. A second example is when Henry asks a series of rhetorical questions, “But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?”. Henry provokes a sense of fear among his audience through these questions. Henry then proceeds to instill fear among his audience by using connotatively loaded words such as “chains”, “clash”, and “clanking” to describe the repercussions of submission, which subconsciously reminds the audience of the inevitable imprisonment and slavery. By using connotatively charged wording, Henry successfully leads the audience into associating submission with slavery, building up fear. All these examples logically guide the audience into fearing submission to the British.

Alongside with generating fear, Henry also promotes a sense of urgency. An example of this is when Henry conveys urgency by stating that the war has already begun and that it is too late to back out. Henry knows that some of his audience still hold on the idea that America could make peace with Britain, so he shatters this mindless illusion by exclaiming “It is now too late to retire from this contest”. This suggests that the time for negotiations has passed and that the time to revolt is now or never, encouraging the audience to act urgently. Another instance of urgency is when Henry asks “But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house?”. He speaks about the possibility of a future in which there is strict surveillance. After all, it would be significantly more difficult to form a rebellion if they were held under strict surveillance. This implies that if they were to revolt at all, they must do it now, putting a sense of culpability and urgency onto the minds of the audience. These excellent tactics of encouraging urgency ultimately drive many members of Henry’s audience to agree with his views.

Stirring Up Anger for Persuasion

Henry demonstrates a final strategy in his attempts to win over his audience when he actively and passively stirs up anger amongst his audience. An example of this in when Henry juxtaposes his previous statement “We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne” with the statement “Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne!”. Henry clearly lists reasons of how the British government has been ignoring and neglecting them, which provokes rage and a sense of unjust from his audience. Another instance of his attempts to enrage his audience is when Henry says, “Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land”, as this allusion to the Judas figure in the Bible who betrays the Christ figure with a kiss not only paints a figurative image of betrayal in the audiences’ mind, it also helps incense the flame of anger from the audience through the description of the betrayal the British is committing while appealing to a higher authority, and this helps stir up anger by pointing finger at the British and allowing the audience to side with Henry. A final example of the provocation of anger is when he alludes to the epic ‘The Odyssey’ in the statement “We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that sire till she transforms us into beasts”. Besides displaying an image of an educated speaker, this allusion mainly achieves the purpose to excite anger in the audience as the “siren” is an allusion to the sea creatures in ‘The Odyssey’ that would lure sailors them to death, and in Henry’s speech, he portrays the British as the “siren”, thereby sparking rage in his audience, allowing them to be easily persuaded. These exemplary attempts evoked hostility amongst towards the British from his audience, which ultimately assisted in helping Henry achieving his goal of winning his fence-sitting audience over.

Conclusion: The Lasting Impact of Henry’s Speech

Overall, Henry effectively establishes himself as a confident and trustworthy speaker and successfully convinces his audience to agree with his views through his advocation of fear, anger, confidence and urgency amongst his audience. His oratory strategies were incredibly effective despite his young age compared to his audience, and history proves that his speech was an absolute success. Although his credibility was somewhat weakened by his relatively young age compared to his audience, Henry’s repeated allusion to Christianity, which was a uniting factor among the audience, along with a well-built, self-confident tone, made it incredibly effective and empowering. Perhaps more importantly, was Henry’s use of emotional appeal, as he adeptly manipulated his audience to fear the British and promoted urgent action. Henry, through examples of British neglect and apathy, immersed his audience in a wave of anger and rage towards the British Crown while urging his audience to act quickly. These various tactics of persuasion ultimately synergized and effectively convinced his audience to start a revolution against the British, as proven by the surge of battles mere months after Henry’s speech.

The relationship between the executive and legislative branches of the United States government is a complex yet vital party of American public policy and national security. The balance of power between these two branches is important to maintain because humanity is naturally evil and corrupted by sin. Yet, when the two branches can work together, it shows a nation that can set aside differences and work for the greater good. Many times throughout history the two branches have clashed on issues, and this relationship impacts the actions and abilities of the president. By studying Thomas Jefferson’s presidency, one can see an example of the relationship and dynamics of the executive and legislative branches. By studying Jefferson’s presidency, one can see how the president and Congress can work together in light of the Congressional/Constitutional restrictions placed on the executive. Jefferson understood and was able to work with Congress during the Conflict with Tripoli and on other issues. Jefferson’s views on foreign policy focused on the importance of foreign trade and its protection. Jefferson provided protection primarily through using the navy as force projection as shown in the Barbary conflict. Foreign nations considered the new United States weak, but Jefferson sought to change this by utilizing the navy and other tactics.

Thomas Jefferson is revered by many Americans because he helped created one of the greatest nations in history. When the average person thinks of Jefferson, his contribution to the Declaration of Independence comes to mind. However, Jefferson’s term in office is just as important as his other contributions. Congress made sure that power within the United States government is not vested in one entity; it divides power between the executive, legislative, and judicial. Specifically, the executive and legislative must work together. Therefore, the executive and legislative branches frequently clash on issues, even if persons of the same party hold the White House and the majority in Congress. This majority scenario was Jefferson’s presidency. Even though Jefferson and his fellow republican party colleagues controlled both the executive and Congress, Jefferson would still need to learn how to work effectively with Congress. Finally, Jefferson sought to deal with U.S. foreign relations through trade and its protection through the projection of power through the military.

The separation of powers is a sacred protection outlined in the Constitution to guard against an unjust government. James Madison, Jefferson’s secretary of state and fellow founding father, puts it best: “The accumulation of all power, legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, or few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny” (Madison, 2001, p. 249). The relationship between the three branches, and in this case specifically the executive and legislative, is meant to be one of contention; the branches need to work together to resolve issues. Jefferson specifically desired to work closely with Congress on many matters, which arguably sets him apart from many presidents throughout history. Even though Jefferson and the Republicans controlled both the executive and Congress, they still clashed on some issues. Casper (1995) notes that after addressing a friendly Congress during his first inaugural address, the relationship between Jefferson and Congress towards the end of Jefferson’s first term was at times filled with tension; some in Congress claimed that Jefferson went back on his claims of upholding the separation of powers (p. 476). Specifically, John Randolph, once a principal ally of Jefferson in the House, now claimed that Jefferson was overstepping his boundaries by not allowing British trade into the United States and therefore is guilty of violating the separation of powers (Casper, 1995, p. 477). Yet, there were many times that Jefferson also did everything in his power to work with Congress and maintain a good relationship; one example was with the conflict in Tripoli.

Concerning the Tripoli matter, one must focus on congressional limitations on presidential actions; specifically, it is critical to emphasize the Constitutional and congressional limitations on the President’s ability to declare war. Jefferson believed in strict adherence to the Constitution and limiting the jurisdiction of the federal government. As a result, he recognized the boundaries placed on him by Congress/the Constitution and acted accordingly. However, to understand this significance, the beginnings of the conflict with Tripoli and how it led to war requires explanation. The struggle with Tripoli has roots that go back to the 1790s. Casper (1995) points out that pirates from the Ottoman states controlled a vast majority of the Mediterranean, and instead of fighting the pirates, they gave money to avoid the sinking of their trade vessels; the United States also followed in Europe’s ways and gave money to these provinces (p. 481). According to Eric Covey (2017), a treaty created with Tripoli entailed that the United States would provide the country with money in exchange for the protection of American trade vessels from pirates in the Mediterranean area (p. 180). However, this treaty would not last long. The treaty between the United States and Tripoli would only serve as a temporary solution that would ultimately boil over into conflict. The leader of Tripoli, Yusuf Qaramanli, became dissatisfied with the United States because they did not provide Tripoli with the amount of money agreed upon; Qaramanli had first resorted to diplomatic measures to secure the funds owed, but this did not work (Covey, 2017, p. 180). As a result, on May 14, 1801, Tripoli declares war on the United States in response to the denying funds to the province (Thomas Jefferson – Key Events, n.d.). It is Jefferson’s response to Tripoli that is of considerable note. Casper (1995) states that an American ship clashed with a Tripolitan vessel; this was done without Congressional consent (p. 482). However, in an address to Congress, Jefferson (2008) argued that the Americans fought in self-defense and that only Congress can declare war:

Unauthorized by the constitution, without the sanction of Congress, to go out beyond the line of defence, the vessel being disabled from committing further hostilities, was liberated with its crew. The legislature will doubtless consider whether, by authorizing measures of offence, also, they will place our force on an equal footing with that of its adversaries. I communicate all material information on this subject, that in the exercise of the important function considered by the constitution to the legislature exclusively, their judgment may form it- self on a knowledge and consideration of every circumstance of weight.

In other words, Jefferson stated that he can only act militarily without the consent of Congress when a narrow set of circumstances are present, such as self-defense. If these limited circumstances were not apparent, then the president could not act in any way. While Jefferson understood that there were some critical circumstances, he always believed that he needed to discuss with Congress anything related to the war, and many of the individuals within his cabinet disagreed with this assertion and claimed that he did not need legislative consent to use any kind of enforcement; Jefferson supported his beliefs by saying that it was Congress that was ultimately responsible for paying the way through the war and should also play a hand in helping to decide what should be used to help win the conflict with Tripoli (Casper, 1995, 483). It is evident that Jefferson wanted to work closely with the legislative Branch on issues and chose not to take many actions without Congress allowing it. Abraham Sofaer (1976) states that “Jefferson had prior congressional approval for virtually all the broad objectives that he sought” (p. 225). As one can see by this example of the relationship between Jefferson and Congress, Jefferson sought to work with the other branch even if there were issues that caused tension. In this case, the congressional limitation put on Jefferson strengthened the bond between the presidency and Congress. The relationship between the executive and legislative branches was integral to the success of Tripoli. The United States projected a unified front on how to handle Tripoli, and this resulted in victory. Even though contention will always exist, when these two realms of government work together, the best results will happen and enable the government to help resolve issues in the fastest way possible. Jefferson recognized that it was not his place to circumvent Congress or go behind its back. Instead, Jefferson chose to stay within his boundaries and work together, which ultimately ended in victory and did not create unnecessary conflict with Congress during a time of war.

It is no secret that the Constitution alludes to the idea that Presidents should play an integral role in international relations. Further, H. Jefferson Powell (1999) states that the idea of the president bearing the responsibility for international relations is a valid interpretation to make in light of the language of the founding fathers (p. 1475). During his tenure as President, Jefferson approached international relations/foreign policy in light of the lessons he learned as a diplomat in Europe during the 1780s and 1790s. Jefferson was a republican, and his views concerning foreign policy align with republican ideas. According to Francis D Cogliano (2014), Jefferson believed that to prevent the country from failing, America should be a land of farmers and not turn into a manufacturing state. However, they were not to be altogether independent of manufacturing in the states; any manufactured goods, besides basic manufactured necessities for farming, should come from overseas (p. 48-50). As one can see, Jefferson’s foreign policy focused on the importance of trade and its protection. Because of Jefferson’s vision of the United States as a primarily agrarian country, foreign commerce was integral to the survival of the economy. Consequently, Jefferson’s approach to international relations emphasized fostering effective trade agreements and routes (Cogliano, 2014, p. 50-51). Again, turning to the situation with Tripoli can help show how Jefferson approached international relations and the projection of force. The Barbary states posed a considerable threat to American trade. Cogliano (2014) talks about the importance of commerce to Jefferson and the interference of the Barbary States:

By threatening United States trade, the Barbary States endangered the liberty of American citizens. This threat was literal in the case of the sailors imprisoned in North Africa…One reason the Barbary States preyed on American ships was because the republic was perceived as weak – a view fostered by the British.

So, another critical point of the issue was that many countries thought that the new United States of America was weak; Jefferson sought to change this. Now the argument turns towards Jefferson’s use of the projection of military force.

As Jefferson dealt with the Barbary pirates problem over the years before and during his presidency, he began to realize that the use of force was necessary and an inevitable. Cogliano (2014) states that Jefferson had become a chief supporter of the use of the navy to deal with the Barbary problem and ensure the protection of American trade (p. 50). In other words, Jefferson believed that one of the prominent ways to show the world that the United States was not weak was to utilize the navy. Seeing as many nations at the time had powerful navies, it would be plausible to think that one of the chief ways to project strength would also be to create a navy that would be a force to be taken seriously. Jefferson believed that the best way to deal with the Barbary States was by utilizing the navy. Additionally, Jefferson believed that America should work with other European nations; this would allow for stronger diplomatic relations with European countries that saw the Barbary states as a threat and show that the United States was not a weak country (Cogliano, 2014, p. 51). As stated in the section concerning Jefferson’s relationship with Congress, Jefferson did utilize the navy to the best of his ability to help fight against Tripoli; his strategic use of the navy would prove advantageous and would ultimately end in a victory. To summarize, Jefferson’s chief way of projecting force was by using the navy to intimidate and project an image of power towards the Barbary States and the rest of the world. When navies were the chief projection of military power, Jefferson, through his views on foreign policy and force projection, showed that the United States should not be underestimated. Cogliano (2014) summarizes Jefferson’s beliefs perfectly:

As secretary of state and president, his foreign policy was not based on a desire to create a new diplomacy but on a recognition of the weakness of the United States. He resorted to a combination of tactics – mixing force, threats of force, diplomacy, economic coercion, and when all else failed, temporizing – to defend and protect vital American interest.

Although Jefferson did have his faults, he recognized that foreign policy and establishing the United States as a dominant player in the world stage would be vital and that all avenues, including force when necessary, should be considered to help show the world that this new country was here to stay.

The balance of power between the three realms of the federal government is central to understanding how the American system operates. The Founders recognized that power corrupts.

Benjamin Constant was a Swiss-French philosopher, one of the firsts to be called a liberal. This essay concerns with Constant’s classical text ‘The Liberty of Ancients Compared with that of Moderns’, which he had addressed to the Athenee Royal de Paris in 1819. This essay-lecture, written in the wake of the French revolution, presents in an argumentative and a suggestive tone, comparison between the two kinds of liberties – one which was practiced by the ancients and the other which the moderns’ practiced or needed. For Ancients, liberty stood for collectively and directly carrying out affairs of the government. This collective political liberty obstructed and interposed the will of the individuals by regulating each area of their life. Whereas for the moderns, liberty centered on respect for individual rights, the rule of law and the right to engage in commerce. To bring about this difference, he gives the examples of the ancient groups and republicans such as Sparta, Rome, the Gauls and Athens with Athens being the only state where “subjection of individual existence to collective body was not as complete as in the others”. In this essay, Constant argues against eighteenth century revolutionaries’ vain and foolish obsession with importing ideas about public and private life from classical philosophy into the modern world. In this regard he critically analyzed the works of de Mably and Rousseau as examples of men whose confusion between the two liberties led to their students’ confusing the ancients’ liberty as their own, resulting in what he calls the ‘evil beginnings’ of the ‘happy revolution’. Constant claims that owing to the difference in the size, social organization, complexity and goals, ancient liberty can no longer be practiced in the modern world. Thus, stresses on the importance of the combination of the two liberties in order to attain a successful representative state which according to him, is the best suited for the moderns.

Historical Context

The message of the text was deeply political and was aimed at giving guidance to the citizens of Restoration France as they sought to recover from the double trauma of the French Revolution of 1789 and the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte, recently brought to an end by defeat for France at the Battle of Waterloo. Benjamin Constant wrote this text in two different phases. The first part of the text was written in collaboration with Mme. Germaine de Stael around 1798 (Gauchet 2009, 34; Vincent 2000, 619-620). The second part of the text was completed around 1819 when France was under Bourbon restoration. During this time the French monarchy was restored and ultra-loyalists (who dominated the legislature) wanted complete reinstallation of the absolute power of sovereign. Wary of such monarchical enthusiasm, Constant utilized his earlier understanding of ancient and modern liberty both to deplore the absolute sovereignty of the king and to demonstrate the dangers of individual emancipation from politics. Like all great thinkers, Constant spoke in terms that would transcend his immediate historical context. Deeply convinced that he was living in the dawn of a new age (era of commerce and industry), he deliberately addressed himself to the ‘modern’ men and ‘friends of liberty’ he hoped to sway, using a very general and universalizing language.

Ancient and Modern Liberty

The liberty for ancients consisted of public democratic control, the right to take part in shared political decision making which shaped collective life. They understood liberty in its narrow sense which was limited to the right to vote. “The ancients saw no inconsistency between collective freedom and complete subjection of the individual to the authority of the group”. There was strict surveillance by the government leading to every aspect of the citizen’s life being regulated by law. There was no space given for individual expression. The ancients functioned in a collective way. Thus, as Constant clearly remarked, “the ancient individual was nearly always sovereign in public affairs but a slave in all his private relations”. However, as societies progressed, needs of individuals changed. The states grew larger-limiting and reducing the importance of an individual’s vote due to the increasing population. The necessity of war eroded, giving way to the practice of commerce by the people. The tradition of slavery, which formed an important component of individuals in antiquity being able to directly exert influence in political affairs, was rejected by the moderns. Societies become more diverse and each person started valuing personal freedom-wishing to preserve their personal identity. They regarded liberty as guarantees of individual freedom encompassing some of the basic rights, subjects of a democracy have today. For example – freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom to associate with others, freedom to move freely and so on. Liberty for modern men meant the rule of law, right to privacy and personal safety. The moderns realized that they would be sacrificing more to gain less and that the costs of war were greater than its benefits. Thus, one can say that the shift in the idea of liberty from the ancient to the modern was a practical one. Modern individuals had to focus both on their domestic as well public lives. Unlike the ancient times where slaves, who were brought as prisoners from the defeated states in interstate wars, did most of the domestic and trade related work, the moderns were all by themselves – having to focus on both aspects of their lives-decreasing the leisure time on their hands. Moreover, the increasing size of both the state and the population, as stated earlier, made it nearly impossible for the state to micromanage the affairs of an individual and left very few ways to repress them. Commerce was now looked upon on as a more efficient way to maintain freedom and prosperity.

However, a point needs to be made here. Constant claims that “modern states were sufficiently civilized to find war a burden”. This idea, central to his distinction between ancient and modern liberty, has been discredited by the fact that the new empires often used war as a means to expand their markets for commerce. For example, America’s pacific empire of the late 1800s.

Constant was very adamant that the state should not interfere with the expressions of ideas. To this effect he gives the examples of Athenian ostracism, where Athenians sent to exile, those they disagreed with, and roman censorship. According to him, ostracism “rested upon the assumption that society had complete authority over its members” and could be useful in a small state where individuals could have much power. However, in the modern Europe man is not subservient to the state but rather has “rights which society must respect”, exile “is an abuse” which “no one has the right” to do. Constant, then, is arguing for the primacy of the rights of an individual; and thus ostracism, in exiling one from his homeland on account of “alleged reasons of public safety”, impinges upon these rights. In contrast, Aristotle saw ostracism as a protective measure, allowing the demos to exile men who became too grand and hence, protect the city from potential tyrants. Thus, for Aristotle, ostracism meant keeping a check on the power of those who were ruling, whereas for Constant, it was an arbitrary process and a political abuse. In relation to Roman censorship, Constant claims that if it occurred in the modern times, all men would revolt. This can be said to be true as in the modern times freedom of expression is considered as the most important safeguard against arbitrary rule.

Another element central to his distinction between moderns and ancients is religion. Ancients did not have the freedom of religion. There was no separation between the church and politics. As Constant describes, Socrates was put on trial for “not believing in the gods of the state”—an affront to our idea of religious liberty that didn’t strike the Athenians strange at all. Constant believed that any intervention in the domain of religion by government caused harm and that the existence of numerous competing religious opinions and sects was good for society as a whole.

Constant also ponders that modern liberty promotes the right of the individual to “dispose of property and even to abuse it”. Though only brushed over, this marks an important break from ancient views such as Locke’s that “unused property is waste and an offence against nature”. His argument, therefore, gives stronger founding to private independence.

Constant recognized that no form of sovereignty – including popular sovereignty – was unlimited and that society did not have an unlimited authority over its members. In theoretical terms, this meant hostility to the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Constant’s belief that individuals were the possessors of rights independent of any social and political authority meant that he also rejected Bentham’s utilitarian critique of the language of rights. The principle of utility, he believed, encouraged us to place considerations of personal advantage over those of public duty.

Representative Government

Benjamin Constant believed that the ideal way for the moderns to practice political liberty was through a representative government wherein the citizens elect their representatives who work on their behalf. The modern men unlike the ancients try to save more and more time to enjoy their personal freedoms, interests and commerce. Benjamin pleads to the readers to keep a check on the proceedings of its chosen representatives and not be fully submerged in their personal gains and freedoms. He points out to the fact that the dangers to modern liberty and ancient liberty aren’t the same. While in ancient liberty the danger was that “men exclusively concerned with securing their share of social power, might under value individual rights and benefits”, the danger in modern liberty is that “we absorbed in the enjoyment of our private independence and the pursuit of our particular interests, might surrender too easily our right to share in political power”. Understanding the modern preference for economic affairs, he endeavors to grab modern reader’s attention by referring to a financial example. He warns the modern man to be vigilant and not take the liberties assured to him for granted as these can be politically undone. He reiterates that all our modern goods are vulnerable to bad politics, and they are only secure if we secure them with better politics, which requires that we engage with democratic life rather than retreating to the private economy. believes that we can’t attain satisfaction only through happiness alone. One must improve himself/herself. Self-improvement, a goal of all individuals, according to him is best realized through political liberty. Representative system plays a central role in balancing between political and civil liberties, particularly making laws and balancing the active powers of the judiciary and executive authorities. He also asks the institutions to carry out moral education of its citizens. By moral education, Benjamin refers to citizenship rights of the people, i.e., enlightened individuals who contribute to the state via voting and ensuring accountability of the institutions.

Conclusion

The elaboration of the background in which the two parts were written, demonstrates in fact that Constant’s 1819 text emerges from his concern for and reflection on French political conditions as he experienced them. For Constant, individual reigns supreme. Constant was able to frame his text in a way that it resonates with individuals even today. He stressed on the importance of combining both political and individual liberty and suggests that representative form of government is the most suitable for the modern people. He explained his philosophy in a really lucid manner making it easy for the reader to understand. This review was able to analyze the critical aspects of his essay-lecture and the motivations behind.

Throughout history, a plethora of battles have been fought in hopes of gaining one thing, – liberty. Whether it was the French Revolution or America’s Civil War, the goal of the oppressed was to gain freedom. These individuals sacrificed their time, money, and lives for a cause that they truly believed in. Even though these individuals were all working towards the possession of liberty, the liberty they were all vying for meant something different to each of them. The circumstances in every human’s life affects their goals and shifts their perception of what something represents.

For me, liberty is the absence of physical or mental subjugation and the ability to be oneself. First, liberty is when you are able to think and act on what you believe. Every individual is in possession of his or her own beliefs. Everything I have been taught and every person I have come into contact with has molded me into the person I am today. This means that everyone is unique and has their own set of ideas that they are typically eager to share with the world. When my friends and I are discussing our favorite TV shows, I like to bring ‘The Office’ into the conversation. I always make sure to give my opinion about how ‘Parks and Recreation’ is simply not as good and, although my friends do not agree, they are tolerant of my opinions. The only reason why I am able to state this opinion time and time again is that I have the liberty to do so. In a world where individuals are not allowed to discuss shows, I would not be able to state my opinions regarding ‘The Office’. In this fashion, liberty allows individuals to express their thoughts and show others what kind of person they really are. The alternative is only having the option to discuss what a higher power authorizes.

In addition, liberty goes beyond the freedom of thought and extends into having the ability to be creative. Humans are visionaries who continually work to create new ways of doing things. We are encouraged to think and take inspiration from all around in order to complete tasks at school. In art classes, students are typically let loose and are able to let their mind wander until inspiration hits. This makes for an innovative and clever society who are able to overcome obstacles and push their personal limits. It is important to be creative because things can always be improved or altered. However, there are numerous communities in the world who are told that creativity is bad and that the traditional ways are the best, and only, ways. These limitations not only hinder the community itself from growing, but they also deter the individuals’ growth and mold them into clay pots. These individuals become a replication of what their governance wants them to be and leaves the people hollow with no sense of imagination.

Also, liberty means having the option to choose. There are numerous times in a person’s life where they will need to make an important decision. Early in our lives, we are supposed to make a decision on where we want to attend college or what occupation we want to pursue. As humans, we naturally pick the option that best suits our interests and brings joy. Because of the circumstances, I have grown up in, I am gifted with liberty in the sense that I can choose where to go, what to do, and how to live out my life. However, not everyone is as fortunate. Many individuals are stripped of their ability to choose their life’s path and are thrown onto a bumpy and winding road. These individuals are forced to partake in intense labor until the day they die or are shipped thousands of miles away from their friends and family to live a life they have no choice in. Individuals without liberty are individuals who are deprived of their independence and livelihood.

As can be seen, liberty means that an individual is not subject to limitations in regards to their beliefs and is able to be their own self. I believe liberty is the ability to act on what you believe, use your creativity, and choose the course of your life. Liberty is a universal thing that appears different in the eyes of each individual who sees it.