Posted on 06/12/2015 10:29:37 AM PDT by beaversmom
June marks the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, the ‘Great Charter’ that established the rule of law for the English-speaking world. Its revolutionary impact still resounds today, writes Daniel Hannan
Eight hundred years ago next month, on a reedy stretch of riverbank in southern England, the most important bargain in the history of the human race was struck. I realize that’s a big claim, but in this case, only superlatives will do. As Lord Denning, the most celebrated modern British jurist put it, Magna Carta was “the greatest constitutional document of all time, the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot.”
It was at Runnymede, on June 15, 1215, that the idea of the law standing above the government first took contractual form. King John accepted that he would no longer get to make the rules up as he went along. From that acceptance flowed, ultimately, all the rights and freedoms that we now take for granted: uncensored newspapers, security of property, equality before the law, habeas corpus, regular elections, sanctity of contract, jury trials.
Magna Carta is Latin for “Great Charter.” It was so named not because the men who drafted it foresaw its epochal power but because it was long. Yet, almost immediately, the document began to take on a political significance that justified the adjective in every sense.
The bishops and barons who had brought King John to the negotiating table understood that rights required an enforcement mechanism. The potency of a charter is not in its parchment but in the authority of its interpretation. The constitution of the U.S.S.R., to pluck an example more or less at random, promised all sorts of entitlements: free speech, free worship, free association. But as Soviet citizens learned, paper rights are worthless in...
(Excerpt) Read more at wsj.com ...
Was the Magna Carta secret when signed, Sen Cruz?
It wasn’t considered all that important until about five centuries later. Shakespeare’s play about King John doesn’t even mention it.
Thanks for the information. :)
The problem with the theory of Magna Carta, in and of itself, being a big giant deal is that most other European countries had similar documents restricting the powers of the king at various times during the Middle Ages.
The difference is not that it existed, but that it was respected, revived at intervals and expanded over time.
Meanwhile, on the Continent, absolutism prevailed almost universally. The analogs of Magna Carta were overruled and then forgotten.
The difference probably being that a country faced with existential threats can’t afford the luxury of dissent. It needs a chain of command all will follow. Continental countries were always faced with the thread, and often the reality, of invasion. “Countries” that failed in this struggle were simply absorbed by more efficient neighbors. The answer to this was a standing army, which could be used even more effectively to crush dissent than in defense or offense.
England, OTOH, didn’t need an army, just a navy, which couldn’t be effectively used to crush dissenters.
As an aside, but not off topic, some high schools in New York State have instructed their history teachers NOT TO discuss, much less teach, anything prior to 1400 AD.
What a coincidence a document like the Magna Carta is essentially erased from history, eh?
I’ve long wondered why they (not sure who gave the order) chose the year 1400. It probably eliminates things like the Crusades and the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
At least they can still talk about Christopher Columbus...for now.
Thank you both for your information.
Only if the discussion is about how awful he was.
The other problem with the glorification of Magna Carta is that the barons who forced it on the king were the opposite of revolutionaries. They were trying to force the king to follow what they believed was already the law, not to make new laws.
Of all the many kings before him, none had managed to alienate so many of his most powerful barons. He didn’t really do much his ancestors hadn’t done, but he did it more often and, most particularly, using methods that infuriated the barons.
Magna Carta wasn’t even their most dramatic expression of anger with the king. That was in the following year, when they invited the French Dauphin to be their new king! He invaded and was supported by many of the barons.
Then John died. This should presumably have meant a swift victory by Prince Louis. But what actually happened was that nobody had anything against the very young King Henry III, and Prince Louis’ English support melted away.
Thank you for your perspective. I’m just a beginner learning about history so I don’t know how to respond, but it is very fascinating to me.
I was going to give you a link to this somewhat related thread, but I see that you are already on it! :)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3241612/posts
Very interesting POV. I hadnt thought of it that way before. Thanks.
Related:
http://www.delgazette.com/news/opinion-opinion_columns/153224190/Happy-birthday-Magna-Carta
“What few people realize, however, is that the original charter was in effect for only 10 weeks. Having been backed into a corner, King John wrote to the pope, stating that he was forced into signing it and offering to give in to all of the pope’s demands if the pope would side with him on rescinding the Magna Carta. Pope Innocent III was more than willing to do so and, in August 1215, issued a papal bull declaring “utterly canceling and making void” all of its provisions.”
“To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.”
— Magna Carta; June 10, 1215
“[We] do utterly reprobate and condemn this agreement and under ban of anathema we command that neither the King shall presume to observe it nor the Barons and their accomplices to require its observation.”
— Papal bull; Aug. 24, 1215
I teach university students at a Big 10 University. None of them know what the Magna Charta is (except for the foreign students)...;-(
A widow , after the death of her husband, shall forthwith and without difficulty have her marriage portion and inheritance; nor shall she give anything for her dower, or for her marriage portion, or for the inheritance which her husband and she held on the day of the death of her husband for fourty days after his death, within which time her dower will assigned to her.
Another clause calls for the expulsion of various mercenaries. Crossbowmen, armed knights and other nuisances to the common man. Back to France with them!
..... and she may remain in the house of her husband for fourty days after his death, within which time her dower will be assigned to her.
I saw a very good talk by David McCollough a few months back. I’ll find it and post it for you if you are interested in viewing. He said the same thing. I don’t know a lot of history myself so I can’t throw too many stones. I think I got a fairly good education in the basics at public school, but I believe that the history instruction was very poor. My kids go to charter and they are learning A LOT. Well, probably just my daughter is going next year. I tell her all the time to absorb everything she can like a sponge. And I do believe Europeans and other foreigners know a lot more history than we do.
Here is the David McCollough talk at the library of Congress:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LRZ3AaBlt0
The whole talk I found to be immensely interesting. He talks about courage and the faults of the great people in our history.
But at 43:50 is where he talks about “historical illiteracy” as he calls it. He also goes on to talk about education in general.
Can you explain your understanding of what that means in modern English?
Thanks for the post! The Magna Charta is perhaps the most important charter in history. It showed the world that leaders are not “sovereign”! Come to think of it...perhaps that is why the powers that be no longer want us to teach the importance of the Magna Charta...
You are very welcome and thanks so much for sharing your perspective as an educator. Always good to hear about conservatives in that field. :)
Under the laws of the land a husband could thus have all rights over wife's property including monies. The children of a widow would be in jeopardy of their inheritance being taken by the aforesaid husband.
The Charter fore bade this. Among other things.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.