... And the broad perspective of history, Farmer George was rather a sad character than a wicked one. While the first two Hanoverians had nearly the sole virtue of not being Stuarts, George III seems to have been on the whole a rather decent man, if shall we say rather stubborn and pigheaded. And he suffered terribly from what passed for medical science in the 18th century.
Related link: In which I speculate on the future of the Glorious Fourth.
I was just thinking about the US Constitution. Some of the words used in the text have drastically shifted meaning (Commerce, happiness), others are archaic (Prudence, hath, perfidy), and still others have shifted in such a way that the original context is hard to understand (Too many to list). Unless you're familiar with the language of the era the text is full of traps. I suspect in a generation it will be almost incomprehensible without footnotes. The amendments, associated court rulings, and secondary commentary will be legally more powerful than the original text, simply because the opinions will make more sense than the original.
And don't get me started on your poorly written Second Amendment. A decent editor could have saved you all a lot of shouting from the National Rifle Sales Association.
How are prudence and perfidy archaic? I see them used all the time. Also, hath shows up a lot in poems, so it's hardly a word that has fallen into disuse.
Ian - There's a whole school of (rightist) constitutional interpretation, 'originalism,' that insists on using only the supposed 18th century understandings - rather selectively, as you might suspect.
The Second Amendment isn't so much poorly written, just rooted in remote assumptions and realities of a remote era. I learned a great deal about it, and the whole Constitution, from reading none other than old Nick Machiavelli - the Discourses, not The Prince. Citizen militia are a very ancient component of republican tradition, however little the classical conception has to do with modern circumstances.
Ferrell - Oh, yes, but general historical experience is that the people who should most learn from it, don't. A good many Brits, such as Edmund Burke, understood the situation rather well, but none of them were setting policy, and the situation was hopelessly beyond poor Farmer George, who ended up doing the sorts of things that got the Stuarts in so much trouble that his family ended up on the throne.
"Ferrell - Oh, yes, but general historical experience is that the people who should most learn from it, don't. A good many Brits, such as Edmund Burke, understood the situation rather well, but none of them were setting policy, and the situation was hopelessly beyond poor Farmer George, who ended up doing the sorts of things that got the Stuarts in so much trouble that his family ended up on the throne."
I have never seen perfidy used in a modern document except in discussions of the Tridentine Mass. It is apparently also used in military law. In either case it's used as a technical term, not as a common word.
I spend a lot of time with poets. None of them use hath in conversation or in their work. It's been used rarely in the past century, and in every case I've seen it's been used as a deliberate archaism.
Prudence shows up from time to time in business commentary, but more often I see prudent. In either case it means 'this person made decisions that didn't make a lot of money, but didn't lose a lot of money either'.
I'm not trying to be contrary here, I honestly don't hear or see these words used as part of modern conversational or even formal English. And when they are used, they don't carry the sense that they used to. We don't speak the same language as Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, or Paine.
As for Edmund Burke - I can't find the reference, but apparently he fell ill during a critical point in the political debate leading up to the American Revolution. Between the illness and his other political causes Burke just didn't have the energy to really push on behalf of the colonists. Given the situation in France at the time and the long ongoing Troubles with Ireland, plus the Catholic Relief* reforms he Burke worked for, it's probably understandable that he let the distant problems of the colonists slide.
Ian - I know practically nothing of the history of Quebec: basically Wolfe and Montcalm, de Gaulle causing a ruckus, and the referendum. But I remember thinking roughly the same thing about the 'neighboring Province' bit.
But the biggest gulf, really, is that the Declaration and Constitution established many assumptions that are now taken for granted, and far beyond the US. All sorts of countries have formal constitutions, and make some claim of popular sovereignty, however exiguous.
" * "For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province..." Roughly translated, 'Whattaya mean you're not going to force the damned French Papists to convert? What's the point to conquering New France if you're going to let them keep their filthy sub-faith?' "
Also my impression is that the Catholic church was left by the British with many special priviledges with the understanding that the Church would help keep the Canadiens quiet.
I might also note that for a long time both before & after 1776 the Catholic Church was very much an enemy of democracy. Cf: the nasty relationship between the church & fascism.
This is also consistent with my profoundly minimal knowledge of Quebec.
I should add that one of the odd little effects of the Internet was to make me actually aware that there are several million francophone North Americans. Of course I had 'theoretical' knowledge, so to speak, of Quebec, but I was startled the first few times that I came across French language websites and puzzled out that they were Quebecois, not French.
Jim, that's a pretty simplistic view of British-French relations in the colonies. It also leaves the Natives completely out of the picture. The British settlements of the era were heavily dominated by land-owners related to the homeland aristocracy, and had fairly illiberal attitudes regarding freedom of religion. If they'd thought they could have purged the Canadiens of Catholicism and the French language, they would have (See also, Acadians). They left the system more or less alone because they didn't have the money or population to do otherwise, and because the French had stronger alliances with the local tribes. The English-speaking settlers felt they had a right to the developed lands of New France but didn't have the strength to enforce that 'right'. So a lot of them fell into a sulk that lasts to this day (See also, Ontario, entire province of).
The seigneurial system also had certain social advantages over the British land-ownership system. Long story short, the seigneurial system had a built in social safety net that created a bottom level of subsistence for all its habitants.
And the British-derived democracies have a long tradition of anti-Catholic thought, dating back to England's troubles with the Catholic Church and the Reformation. Note that it only took eight posts for someone to point out the Catholic Church's flirtation with fascism while ignoring the US's hot date with Hitler. Some members of my family still hold a grudge towards Henry Ford and William Knudsen.
"But the biggest gulf, really, is that the Declaration and Constitution established many assumptions that are now taken for granted, and far beyond the US. All sorts of countries have formal constitutions, and make some claim of popular sovereignty, however exiguous."
When even the worst dictatorships use the language of democracy to describe their operations, it does cause a certain amount of cynicism. When the elected representative and the brutal strongman can both stand before their people and give the exact same speech about respect for the will of the people, you can't blame the people for wondering if the words actually mean anything.
"Jim, that's a pretty simplistic view of British-French relations in the colonies."
True Ian. It's about as simplistic as your own post, just in the opposite direction. My intent was to point out that the rebels against the Crown had not only irrational prejudice for their position on that issue.
"It also leaves the Natives completely out of the picture."
I'm not going to attempt to defend the English settlers relations with the natives, which are almost indefensible.
"the seigneurial system had a built in social safety net" A lord & peasant relationship is a high price to pay for an admittedly desirable safety net.
"And the British-derived democracies have a long tradition of anti-Catholic thought"
My own position is not so much anti-Catholic as anti-religion. I have much sympathy with Christopher Hitchens' contention that "religion poisons everything". That said I think a reasonable case can be made that as grossly flawed as the Protestant churches may be, they are a step in the direction of freedom & egalitarianism compared to the Catholic Church.
"Catholic Church's flirtation with fascism while ignoring the US's hot date with Hitler."
At least the US's date ended in December 1941. The Catholic church sheltered Nazi's after 1945.
BTW the tone of your post there suggested that you regard 'anti-catholic' as about as respectable as 'anti-Semitic'. Did I misread you there?
Good idea. The internet is a finicky machine, particularly prone to overheating.