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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 🤣🤣

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. ___

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Endless enjoyment listening and learning from this wonderful man.

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.

A fascinating address. Thank you, Dr Starkey.

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.

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.

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

Quality, as always.

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

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!

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.

He nailed it.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

Give me my Monarchy back! -an Angry American

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

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.

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!

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

And yes sir ; you are quite correct 💯

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.

Fancinating, excellent and educational.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

Great video

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.

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

Those natural rights ought to be self-evident.

I like to think of the American Revolution as the completion of the English Civil War 100 years earlier answering many of the questions raised then, As for Americans believing in "freedom", they do not. They believe in power and just call it "freedom". If you change "freedom" to "power" in much of the rhetoric, at home, and abroad in foreign relations, power makes more sense. "Protecting American freedom" makes more sense in championing many stupid wars.

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

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.

SPOT ON.

On top form here!

Very interesting video. It is indeed quite true that the US Constitution inherited many of its ideas from the existing English system of government, and Anglo/Scottish political philosophy of the time. However, Dr. Starkey appears to have overlooked the role of religion, both in England and in the Colonies prior to independence. Many colonies were founded on the idea of practicing religion differently than that of the establishment Church of England. And once established, the colony itself imposed a religious intolerance and uniformity every bit the equal of that in England. Dr. Starkey mentions the brutality of the American Civil War as opposed to the relative (perhaps) gentility of the English Civil War. In the larger context, the English Civil War, leading up to Cromwell and the execution of the King, was largely a religious one; a part of the FAR larger 30 Years War on the Continent, which in its brutality and lethality, relative to the available technology, was as bad as any War in human European history. The American Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery, and the proximate cause was the South's refusal to abide by the results of a completely legitimate Presidential election. Very different issues, indeed. The point of all this is say that true difference, and the genius of, the US Constitution as opposed to the then, and still existing system in the UK is that there is NO state religion in the US; and that the individual colonies, despite and whatever their establishment religious heritage may have been, were not allowed to impose one. The President of the United States is not the head of the "Church of America".

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

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."

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

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 !!!!!

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

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".

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.

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

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

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.

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 KZfaq 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)

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Just as a matter of interest, is there an equivalent of the Remembrancer in the US system?

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.

David, have you been sick or otherwise busy? You have not really posted much lately I’m very curious to see what your review of the new show on STARZ about Elizabeth

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

History tell us "it's good to be the king"

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.

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,

Afghan women were wearing mini-skirts and going to university in the 70's. I wonder what happened there?

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

"In 1695 harsh penal laws were enforced, known as the 'popery code': Catholics were prohibited from buying land, bringing their children up as Catholics, and from entering the forces or the law. Catholics could no longer run for elected office, purchase land, or own property (such as horses) valued at more than 5 pounds. In the early years of the 18th century the ruling Protestants in Ireland passed these laws designed to strip the "backwards" Catholic population of remaining land, positions of influence and civil rights. By 1778 Irish Catholics would own a meager 5% of Irish land. Furthermore, the Catholic educational system was outlawed and priests who did not conform to the laws could be branded on the face or castrated. As a result, much of Catholic church services and education and record keeping was forced underground, to operate only under extreme secrecy. The religion and culture were kept alive by secret open-air masses and illegal outdoor schools, known as 'hedge' schools. All Irish culture, music and education was banned. By the time of the census of 1841 the Irish were impoverished, landless and leaderless by the eve of the famine. Professor Lecky a British Protestant and ardent British sympathizer, said in his "History of Ireland in the 18th Century" that the object of the Penal Laws was threefold: "To deprive Catholics of all civil life; to reduce them to a condition of extreme, brutal ignorance; and, to disassociate them from the soil.: Lecky said, "He might with absolute justice, substitute Irish for Catholic, "and added a fourth objective: "To expatriate the race." Where did they go? "I am assured from the best authority, the major part of the American Army was composed of Irish and that the Irish language was as commonly spoken in the American ranks as English." ~ Luke Gardiner, 1st Viscount Mountjoy, addressing the Parliament of the Kingdom of Ireland, April 2nd, 1784 There would be no USA, no Washington, no earlier Irish document to inspire the US Declaration of Independence and no continental army worth writing home about without the Gaelic speaking native Irish born who were thrown off their land in Ireland. The Irish in The American revolution The romance and myths of the American Revolution have long obscured the disproportionate contributions of the Irish, who numbered as high as one half million of America’s two million population. George Washington Park Custis, Washington’s adopted son and a careful student of history, placed the significant Irish contribution to the American revolution in a proper historical perspective: “When our friendless standard was first unfurled for resistance, who were strangers [foreigners] that first mustered ‘round its staff when it reeled in the fight, who more bravely sustained it than Erin’s generous sons? Who led the assault on Quebec [General Montgomery] and shed early luster on our arms, in the dawn of our revolution? Who led the right wing of Liberty’s forlorn hope [General Sullivan] at the passage of the Delaware [just before the attack on Trenton]? Who felt the privations of the camp, the fate of battle, or the horrors of the prison ship more keenly than the Irish? Washington loved them, for they were the companions of his toil, his perils, his glories, in the deliverance of his country.” Yet, the role of the Irish has often been written out. No chapter of America’s story has been more thoroughly dominated by myths and romance than the nation’s desperate struggle for life during the American Revolution. Unfortunately, America’s much-celebrated creation story has presented a sanitized version of events. The long-accepted proper imaginary of the typical American patriot was that of an Anglo-Saxon who descended from early English settlers. This popular perception became a permanent part of the national mythology, in regard to the people who were seen as having been most responsible for sustaining and winning the revolutionary struggle. As could be expected, the seemingly endless romantic myths about America’s founding were created as part of the usual process of countries constructing self-serving myths for national self-gratification. Americans today believe that the upper-class elite, especially the Founding Fathers, and the traditional New England model (the popular romantic New England stereotype of the middle-class yeoman soldier of Anglo-Saxon descent) were most responsible for America’s success in the revolutionary struggle. But this romanticized focus of America’s creation story from the top has overlooked what was actually more significant in determining winner from loser during the American Revolution: the historical, republican, and cultural legacies brought to America by hundreds of thousands of Irish immigrants before the war’s beginning and the disproportionate contributions of the Irish from 1775 to 1783. Without sufficient resources to purchase land, lower class Irish settlers had pushed toward the setting sun in the search of land and the promise of a fresh start. Here, on the western frontier, they created distinctive ethnic communities, like “Little Ireland,” and “Little Dublin,” before the American Revolution, while laying America’s most sturdy foundation for resistance to the so-called Mother Country. After all, England was the ancient enemy of the Irish people, and she was definitely no Mother County to them. Most of all, it was the lowest class colonists who made the most important contributions to America’s ultimate victory over an extended period. They were the ones who fought and died in disproportionate numbers (as in leading the way west-literally an Irish vanguard-and settling the western frontier) to make America an independent nation. And no social class in America was lower (after African slaves, of course) than the Irish, who served in the ranks in large numbers from every colony (later states) during the revolutionary struggle. Unfortunately, the romance and myths of the American Revolution have long obscured the disproportionate contributions of the Irish, who numbered as high as one half million of America’s two million population. But these extensive contributions by the so-called lower class “mob” from the point of view of the wealthy, aristocratic revolutionary elite, including the Founding Fathers, were overlooked for political, economic, and social reasons (not to mention prejudices) that became so deeply ingrained in American life. But what cannot be denied was the notable fact that the Irish responded to the call of liberty en masse. However, because so many of these diehard patriots were recent immigrants from Ireland and members of the lowest class, they were considered outsiders and foreigners, especially Irish Catholics, who were not deemed worthy of mention by generations of America’s leading historians and scholars. Mostly from the northeast, these influential Anglo-Saxon historians possessed ample good reason to obscure the truth about America’s creation story. Quite simply, without the disproportionate and significant contributions of the Irish on all levels (political, military, and economic), America would not have won its struggle for independence. In consequence, the Irish odyssey during the American Revolution is one of the best-untold stories of American history. Indeed, the Irish played disproportionate roles in every phase of America’s struggle for liberty because the Irish already fully understood (unlike the majority of colonists of British descent) what would become America’s tragic fate, if Great Britain was allowed to turn this land of plenty into another Ireland.

America is true England. It is England abstracted from its feudal ground.

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.

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?

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

Interestingly, for all the talk of 'inflexibility', no one bothers mentioning that we in America have the world's smallest constitution. It isn't 'a living' document of laws piled high over a period of 807 years since the Magna Carta. But, I as an American have become accustomed to this kind of passive-aggressive lecture like I am some rebellious naive child for following my own path after making a point that the estranged parents should live up to their own standards on liberty after colonial troops provided the land forces in North America to win the French and Indian War (Seven Years War), which vastly expanded the British Empire at France's expense. It is a stuffy paternalism that I have become accustomed to enduring from my British friends 246 years after the 13 colonies, which until 1763 had remained largely politically autonomous, broke away. (I still love them anyway, as I do the British people and Britain in general.) Were it not for those like David Starkey who seem to reject federalism in favor of a more unitary form of parliamentary government and 'a living' constitution like here along the Left, our Tenth Amendment (the right of states to make laws where they are not otherwise prescribed in the Constitution) would have led to a legal system over time not too different from Switzerland. Margaret Thatcher was right though: "Constitutions have to be written on hearts, not just paper." If one isn't properly socialized to respect the law, he will embody the spirit and characteristics of an antisocial person, or a common criminal. Or, in our political system, a liberal who finds more sympathy in the UN Charter and the French revolutionary tradition than in our own legal system, a republican government that combines the more atomized representative body similar to the British House of Commons and judiciary with the concept of the Roman Senate.

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.

"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"?

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.

Not sure if it is a myth but heard Jefferson had to change the word ‘subjects’ to ‘citizens’ in the Constitution.

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.

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.

Of course the ultimate irony was that thos jefferson lived in paris 1784-1789 WITH THE SLAVE he brought from America. To live in such an unjust society (only the working classes were pursued for taxes), and not only NOT condemn this nor the bloody tyranny that followed, but run away back to america in 1789 when the revolution he had lauded impacted his comfort. Then laud the french as the epitome of freedom and justice, whilst vitriolically slamming the british who were sinking the french navy to stop them transporting slaves from africa to america. What a bloody just and wonderful society he envisioned in his constitution.