The opening line from the source in particular caught my eye:
Mr. L. MARTIN contended at great length and with great eagerness that the General Govt. was meant merely to preserve the State Governts.: not to govern individuals:
I new it sounded familiar, and sure enough:
Having given you this general idea and description of the law of nations; need I expatiate on its dignity and importance? The law of nations is the law of sovereigns. In free states, such as ours, the sovereign or supreme power resides in the people. In free states, therefore, such as ours, the law of nations is the law of the people.
Let us again beware of being misled by an ambiguity, sometimes, such is the structure of language, unavoidable. When I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean not that it is a law made by the people, or by virtue of their delegated authority; as, in free states, all municipal laws are. But when I say that, in free states, the law of nations is the law of the people; I mean that, as the law of nature, in other words, as the will of nature's God, it is indispensably binding upon the people, in whom the sovereign power resides; and who are, consequently, under the most sacred obligations to exercise that power, or to delegate it to such as will exercise it, in a manner agreeable to those rules and maxims, which the law of nature prescribes to every state, for the happiness of each, and for the happiness of all.
Of the Law of Nations, James Wilson, Lectures on Law
-------
Sorry about what probably appeared to be a FReepmail unrelated to your post. I swear that link went to a different place entirely the first time.
:-)
I've noticed quite a lot that the writers on natural law all tend to sound similar. I think it is because their reasoning always grows from the same root. Good find regarding James Wilson, by the way.
Sorry about what probably appeared to be a FReepmail unrelated to your post. I swear that link went to a different place entirely the first time.
Yes, that was very confusing. I hadn't mentioned slavery at all in my message, so I thought I had given you the wrong link or something.
It would appear to me that Rutherford and Vattel were in pretty close agreement about the Father's role in natural law. I'm probably going to look through Locke for some similar supporting commentary.