USA 250: The Rights Of Englishmen And The American Revolution

[mystery-ak]

USA 250: The Rights Of Englishmen And The American Revolution

Before the Constitution and Bill of Rights, there were the 12 “rights of Englishmen,” and we fought the Revolution over them. But what were they?

S. David Sultzer | April 13, 2026

We claim Nothing but the Liberty & Privileges of Englishmen, in the same Degree, as if we had still continued among our Brethren in Great Britain: these Rights have not been forfeited by any Act of ours, we can not be deprived of them, without our Consent, but by Violence & Injustice; We have received them from our Ancestors, and, with God’s Leave, we will transmit them, unimpaired to our Posterity. Can those, who have hitherto acted as our Friends, endeavour now, insidiously, to draw from Us Concessions destructive to what we hold far dearer than Life!

– George Mason, Letter to the Committee of Merchants in London, June 6, 1766

Colonists constantly echoed George Mason’s thoughts about the “Liberty & Privileges of Englishmen” in the run-up to the Revolutionary War. Patriots such as James Otis (1763), Patrick Henry (1765), Samuel Adams (1772), and the members of the First Continental Congress (1774) repeated the theme. American colonists didn’t fight the world’s superpower to steal Indian land or keep slavery alive (both ludicrous modern slanders), but to vindicate those rights.

The “Rights of Englishman” is repeated in two familiar documents: The Constitution, ratified in 1787, and the Bill of Rights, ratified in 1791. But what were they and how did they originate?

They were accrued over hundreds of years of English history. Each was bathed in the blood of Englishmen who fought against government oppression and for representation. They fought, too, to impose a duty on the executive to execute the laws. Here are those rights and their historical context:

more
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/04/usa_250_the_rights_of_englishmen_and_the_american_revolution.html

[The_Reader_David]

The point made by this article is that the American Revolution was simultanesously liberal (in the original meaning of the word:  free speech, freedom of religion, free markets) and conservative (vindicating a claim to ancient and well-established rights).  The Constitution takes as a given the Common Law, and while American patriots not long after independence made the claim that the Common Law of the United States is not the Common Law of England, that only became true as American legal precedents were established.  At the moment of independence, our Common Law was that we inherited from the mother country.

[Bigun]

The point made by this article is that the American Revolution was simultanesously liberal (in the original meaning of the word:  free speech, freedom of religion, free markets) and conservative (vindicating a claim to ancient and well-established rights).  The Constitution takes as a given the Common Law, and while American patriots not long after independence made the claim that the Common Law of the United States is not the Common Law of England, that only became true as American legal precedents were established.  At the moment of independence, our Common Law was that we inherited from the mother country.

Except for whom can become president or vice president, I would agree. St. George Tucker laid it all out in detail.