The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American

by Andrew L. Seidel

The least religious countries:

Have the lowest rates of violent crime and homicide Are the best places to raise children and to be a mother Have the lowest rates of corruption Have the lowest levels of intolerance against racial and ethnic minorities Score highest for women’s rights and gender equality Have the greatest protection and enjoyment of political and civil liberties Are better at educating their youth in reading, math, and science Are the most peaceful Are the most prosperous Have the highest quality of life.50 This pattern also exists within the United States. Those states that are the most religious have more societal ills, and tend to: Have the highest rates of poverty Have the highest rates of obesity Have the highest rates of infant mortality Have the highest rates of STDs Have the highest rates of teen pregnancy Have the lowest percentage of college-educated adults Have the highest rates of murder and violent crime.51

This, of course, does not prove that religion causes immoral behavior, but it confirms that religion is not requi...

In fifth-century Egypt, a Christian monk named Shenoute denounced a local pagan magnate, ransacked his house, and smashed his idols. The pagan accused Shenoute of banditry and he responded, “There is no crime for those who have Christ.”52

People who believe they are acting in accord with a higher law are giving themselves a license to do anything. That is, as the physicist Steven Weinberg observed, the real danger of religion: “With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”53

Paine wrote, “Accustom a people to believe that priests or any other class of men can forgive sins, and you will have sins in abundance.”54 Sins that can be “forgiven” without real punishment, without the victim’s consent, without involving the civil law, are more likely to be committed. (Perhaps this is one reason the Catholic Church is failing so abominably to protect the children in its charge.)

By protecting the freedom of religion and divorcing government and religion, the founders guaranteed that religion would flourish in the new country. The benefits of the religion they thought necessary for the common people would be assured by keeping the two forever separate.

IF THE FOUNDERS BELIEVED THAT RELIGION was important to ensure moral behavior for the masses but not for themselves—the educated elite—it means the founders were moral without religion. It means they built a government using their own morality, not religion. And this eviscerates the Christian nationalist claim.

That the founders did not look to the bible or religion turns out to be an important character trait for the formation of America. The prime movers among the founders showed a liberality and unorthodoxy in religion, a characteristic that often leads one to question other established “truths” such as the legitimacy of a monarchy. There is a strong correlation between reformers and religious heterodoxy.55 People who are more likely to question the political status quo are more likely to question religion, and vice versa. If the founders had been bible-beating believers, they might never have thought to revolt against an empire and declare independence.

And, as it is one of our founding documents, they claim that our nation is Judeo-Christian because of the Declaration’s religious language—specifically the four references that many read as invoking a supernatural power: “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” “endowed by their Creator,” “Supreme Judge of the World,” and “divine Providence.” The truth is both subtler and more exciting.

The Declaration of Independence gave voice to the most important shift in political thought in history, but it did not establish a new nation, a government, or a legal system.5

The Declaration “dissolve[d] the political bands” that connected the colonies to Great Britain. It did not create; it severed, which is far simpler than nation-building. “It is much easier to pull down a Government, in such a Conjuncture of affairs as We have seen, than to build up,” remarked John Adams.6 The Constitution, not the Declaration, created our government and laws.7

Nearly fifty years after he drafted it, Jefferson wrote about “the object of the Declaration of Independence.”9 It was “[n]ot to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of” or “to say things which had never been said before.”10 It was meant “to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent.”11 It did not aim “at originality of principle or sentiment.”12 Put simply, “it was intended to be an expression of the American mind.”13 Carl Becker, the American historian who wrote the book on the subject—The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas (1922)—thought that “the primary purpose of the Declaration was not to declare independence, but to proclaim to the world the reasons for declaring independence. It was intended to formally justify an act already accomplished.”14

It was a justification, and as part of that justification it laid out a political philosophy. That philosophy was not new, but Jefferson’s formulation of it was more beautiful, simpler, and more powerful than any previously, and perhaps since, written. The central pillar of this political philosophy—that governments are instituted for and by the people—had never been put fully into practice. But it would be enshrined in the first three words of the Constitution eleven years later and then carved into the American mind forever: “We the People.”

This is a philosophy of rebellion against arbitrary power, and of self-government. Jefferson wanted the Declaration to be “the signal…to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded [men] to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.”17 As that language indicates and as we’ll see, that philosophy makes the Declaration thoroughly anti-biblical. These two philosophical prongs, rebellion and self-government, line up nicely with the Declaration’s primary purposes—

severing political ties and uniting the colonies.

continuing until “it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security,” say nothing about Britain or the colonies. Neither is mentioned until the end of the second paragraph, after the philosophy has been laid out. As Professor Stephen Lucas has observed, the Declaration argues by syllogism. Jefferson argues his major premise first and Britain’s violation of that premise second:18 Major Premise Because governments are instituted to protect citizens’ rights, people have a right and a duty to throw off despotic governments and to create “new guards” for those rights. Minor Premise The British government is despotic, as the following 28 charges show. Conclusion Therefore, the American people have a right and a duty to throw off British rule.

Those are the revolutionary purposes of the Declaration. But there were other purposes as well, including gaining foreign recognition and support. Two years of embargoes and war were destroying the American economy and trade. “Most of the delegates to the Continental Congress regarded the Declaration as a ceremonial confirmation of what had already occurred,” writes Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Joseph J. Ellis, adding, “its chief practical value, apart from publicizing a foregone conclusion in lyrical terms, was to enhance the prospects of a wartime alliance with France, and all the revolutionary leaders understood the French alliance to be the urgent issue at the time.”19 After all, who were the colonies? They were distant, rebellious outposts of a vast, powerful empire. At least, that is what other monarchs and countries would believe. What ruler would treat or trade with a group of rogue colonies? Virginia Continental Congressman George Wythe raised this issue a few months before July 1776: But other things are to be considered, before such a measure is adopted; in what character shall we treat?—as subjects of Great Britain,—as rebels? Why should we be so fond of calling ourselves dutiful subjects? If we should offer our trade to the Court of France, would they take notice of it any more than if Bristol or Liverpool should offer theirs, while we profess to be subjects? No. We must declare ourselves a free people.20

“no foreign Power can consistently yield Comfort to Rebels, or enter into any kind of Treaty with these Colonies till they declare themselves free and independent.”21 The colonies’ instructions to delegates at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia show that acquiring foreign aid was an important aim of the Declaration. North Carolina empowered its delegates in April 1776 to “concur with the delegates of the other Colonies in declaring independency and forming foreign alliances.”22 If the colonies wished to continue the war, if they wished to restore and revive trade, they needed a treaty with a foreign power.23 Negotiating one required declaring independence and achieving legitimacy as a state. The Declaration helped accomplish the first. And Jefferson started the process in the first sentence, when he listed the British and Americans as two separate people: “necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.”24 That treatment, the obvious yet somehow subtle differentiation between two peoples, was a powerful announcement to the world.

Yet one more purpose was to unite the colonies in the war against Britain. In 1776, the citizens who would come to be known as the American people were divided. Some were committed to independence, some were opposed, and some were wavering despite the convincing arguments in Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. King George issued an ultimatum: “The colonies must either submit or triumph.”25 There was no turning back. If Patrick Henry did, in fact, proclaim “give me liberty or give me death,” he was right: the choice was to win or die.26 Or, as Franklin put it: “Join, or Die.” But the people had to be convinced. Adams, Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, and other founders were traitors in the eyes of the king. The Declaration essentially put every citizen on the enemies list. As Franklin may have said, “we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.”27

“The colonies had grown up under constitutions of government so different, there was so great a variety of religions, they were composed of so many different nations, their customs, manners, and habits had so little resemblance, and their intercourse had been so rare, and their knowledge of each other so imperfect, that to unite them in the same principles in theory and the same system of action, was certainly a very difficult enterprise. The complete accomplishment of it, in so short a time and by such simple means, was perhaps a singular example in the history of mankind. Thirteen clocks were made to strike together—a perfection of mechanism, which no artist had ever before effected.”28

Church of England to stop an unjust war. King George III was not only the titular head of the Church of England, but also a faithful and active supporter.29 Ecclesiastical debates raged in England during the 1770s, and they helped to bind George’s religiosity to his political views, particularly with respect to the American colonies.30 His opposition to the Revolutionary War stemmed, at least in part, from his opposition to religious heterodoxy.

Throughout the Revolution, George believed that his god would give him strength and protection, writing, “I begin to see that I shall soon have enfused some of that spirit which I thank Heaven ever attends me when under difficulties…. I trust in the protection of the Almighty, in the justness of the cause, the uprightness of my own intentions.”33 Black explains that George “took his role and God-given responsibilities as Supreme Governor of the Church very seriously.”34 He was devout, was known for his personal piety, and thought that his god intervened in this world, so he governed according to what he saw as his god’s will.35

In theory, the divine right of kings was abandoned in England when the Glorious Revolution (1688–89) dethroned the Stuarts. James Wilson—Scottish émigré, founding father, and one of the original six Supreme Court justices—said as much in the Pennsylvania ratifying convention: “Is the executive power of Great Britain founded on representation? This is not pretended. Before the [Glorious] revolution, many of the kings claimed to reign by divine right, and others by hereditary right.”36 Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Algernon Sidney had all penned devastating critiques of the divine right, but the idea was still embraced in many quarters. As Becker notes, “In that day kings were commonly claiming to rule by divine right, and according to this notion there could be no ‘right’ of rebellion.”37 The more religious a monarch, the more likely he would be to think a god had assigned him his rightful place as ruler.

The idea that all people are created equal is not a religious idea; the idea that some people are special or chosen is one that various religious groups have embraced throughout history. The entire Hebrew Bible is about ...

Jefferson wrote that when a government becomes despotic, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” But, despite the Christian nationalists’ arguments to the contrary, self-government and revolution against tyranny are not principles derived from Christianity or the bible.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE is an anti-Christian document with snippets of religious-sounding language as window dressing. If Jefferson and the other revolutionaries had been devout Christians, they never would have rebelled, the Declaration would never have been written, and America’s political relationship to the United Kingdom today would resemble Canada’s. The Christian bible stands directly opposed to the Declaration’s central ideas, including that it is “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [their government], and to institute a new Government.”

Paul’s letter to the Romans demonstrates this opposition: Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against ...

For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.39

This theology is alive and well in Christian nationalism. In what one journalist labeled “a stunning expression of Christian nationalism,” President Donald Trump’s closest evangelical advisor, Paula White, reiterated these passages to diffuse the constant and justified criticism that Trump is vulgar and undignified: “They say about our president, ‘Well, he is not presidential.’ Thank goodness…he is not a polished politician. In other words, he is authentically—whether people like it or not—has been raised up by God. Because God says that He raises up and places all people in places of authority. It is God who raises up a king. It is God that sets one down. When you fight against the plan of God, you are fighting against the hand of God.”

Enemies of colonial independence relied on the divine authority of governments. John Lind, an English barrister, refuted the Declaration in a 1776 pamphlet. Lind pointed out that the Declaration does not, indeed cannot, rely on “any law of God”: What difference these acute legislators suppose between laws of Nature, and of Nature’s God, is more than I can take upon me to determine, or even to guess. If to what they now demand they were entitled by any law of God, they had only to produce that law, and all controversy was at an end. Instead of this, what do they produce? What they call self-evident truths, ‘All men’ they tell us, ‘are created equal.’44

“the uniform doctrine of the Scriptures, that it is under the deputation and authority of God alone that kings reign…far from deriving their authority from any supposed consent or suffrage of men, they receive their commission from Heaven; they receive it from God, the source…of all power.”45 And he relied on the bible to argue against American independence. Declaring independence was against his god’s law because “Obedience to government is every man’s duty” though “it is particularly incumbent on Christians, because…it is enjoined by the positive commands of God; and therefore, when Christians are disobedient to human ordinances, they are also disobedient to God.”46 No matter how repressive the government, Boucher argued, “it is our duty not to disturb and destroy the peace of the community, by becoming refractory and rebellious subjects, and resisting the ordinances of God.”47 According to Boucher, the bible never even discusses government except to say that it must be obeyed, not rebelled against: “The only circumstance relative to government, for which the Scriptures seem to be particularly solicitous, is in inculcating obedience to lawful governors.”48

The Declaration does not require blind obedience; the bible and the biblical god do. God takes away everything Job has—he kills his children, bankrupts him, sets his skin afire with boils. Job bears this train of abuse by continuing to worship god. This is precisely the opposite of what the Declaration demands: “When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off…” For the founders, King George III was akin to the biblical god in this situation, abusing the colonies and expecting blind obedience in return.

Religions, particularly established religions or religions to which a majority of the population ascribe, will nearly always oppose revolution because revolution upsets the status quo in which they are powerful. This also means that religions will usually fight progress, as can be seen across history, from flat-earthers to geocentrists to young earth creationists; from the index of prohibited books to book burnings to declaring one—and only one—book the book of truth; from outlawing pain relief during childbirth to banning contraception to preventing women from taking control of procreation; from exorcisms to opposing vaccines and stem cell research; from validating slavery to enslaving women in the home to prohibiting same sex marriage; to the religious persecution of Socrates, Hypatia, Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Spinoza, and Charles Darwin. Progress threatens religion—this was true for and well known to the founders.

Many Christians did not believe humans had a right to defend themselves from divine attacks. Abbe Nollett, a man of the church, deemed it “as impious to ward off Heavens’ lightnings as for a child to ward off the chastening rod of its father.”52 Franklin retorted that “the Thunder of Heaven is no more supernatural than the Rain, Hail, or Sunshine of Heaven, against the Inconvenience of which we guard by Roofs & Shades without Scruple.”53 When organized Christianity failed to stop the spread of the useful invention, it blamed other natural phenomena, such as the 1755 Boston earthquake, on Franklin’s rods.54 John Adams condemned the religious opposition to Franklin’s rods, writing that they “met with all that opposition from the superstition, affectation of Piety, and Jealousy of new Inventions, that Inoculation to prevent the Danger of the Small Pox, and all other useful Discoveries, have met with in all ages of the World.”55 Franklin’s unholy invention was a blessing to humanity from the mind of a man, and religion fought it at every step.

1780. Scientific, political, and social progress all threaten religion, which is why the bible demands blind obedience—“do not revile the king, even in your thoughts”56—first to its god, and then to the state. God, even as only an idea, is a millstone around the neck of society, not an engine of progress.

Adams waged a lonely war against slavery. In 1836, the slaveholding states had successfully imposed a gag rule (the origin of that term) in the House, which essentially prohibited mentioning slavery. Adams rebelled against the rule as much as against slavery itself. On behalf of some constituents in 1842, he submitted a petition to dissolve the “Union of these States” over southern slavery. Harlow Giles Unger tells the story of the ensuing parliamentary conflict in his biography of the younger Adams:57

“Sir,” John Quincy shot back, “what is high treason? The Constitution of the United States says what high treason is…. It is not for the gentleman from Kentucky, or his puny mind, to define what high treason is and confound it with what I have done.” John Quincy then ordered the clerk to read the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence…. “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation–” “Proceed!” John Quincy thundered. “Proceed! Down to ‘right’ and ‘duty’!” The clerk continued: “It is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government.” “Now, sir, if there is a principle sacred on earth and established by the instrument just read, it is the right of the people to alter, change, to destroy, the government if it becomes oppressive to them. There would be no such right existing if the people had not the power in pursuance of it to petition for it…. “I rest that petition on the Declaration of Independence!” John Quincy boomed.

John Quincy Adams was more orthodox than many of the founders, yet even he noted that the Declaration, not the bible, established the sacred principle of rebellion.

holds that governments are “established by God.”58 “By me,” meaning by the biblical god, “kings reign” and “rulers rule,” says the bible.59 The Declaration of Independence is based on a different idea: that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.” This is the very foundation of the self-government ideal and an explicit rejection of a god-given government. That rejection is embodied (and rather heavily emphasized) in the first three words of the Constitution, “We the People.” People give the government power and legitimacy, not gods. The Constitution and the Declaration directly contradict Christian principles of governmental authority.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

…human events…one people…another…mankind…powers of the earth…the opinions of mankind…all men…Governments are instituted among Men…consent of the governed…it is the Right of the People…to them…their Safety and Happiness…. all experience hath shewn, that mankind…to which they are accustomed…. their right…their duty…their future security…these Colonies…tyranny over these States…a candid world. The Declaration was written not to justify the separation to a god; it was written because the founders held “a decent respect to the opinions of mankind” and wished to change those opinions. Becker taught us that the founders and their forebears focused on human endeavor and accomplishment, elevating both: This is precisely what the eighteenth century did: with the lantern of enlightenment it went up and down the field of human history looking for man in general, the universal man, man stripped of the accidents of time and place; it wished immensely to meet Humanity and to become intimate with the Human Race. If it could find Humanity it would have found man in general, the natural man; and so it would have some chance of knowing what were the rights and laws which, being suited to man in general, were most likely to be suited to particular men, everywhere and always.63

The Declaration, the principles it embodied, and the political philosophy it outlined, are truly and thoroughly opposed to Judeo-Christian principles. This is not to say that American preachers and religious leaders of the time did not advocate independence and revolution; some did.64 But they did so in spite of biblical constraints. Robert Boucher, the Anglican minister opposed to independence, chastised his godly brethren for this crime: “Let a minister of God, then, stand excused if…he seeks not to amuse you by any flowery panegyrics on liberty. Such panegyrics are the productions of ancient heathens and modern patriots: nothing of the kind is to be met with in the Bible.”65 Preachers tortured biblical passages to fit their arguments, including independence; that is the preacher’s job. But in truth, ministers preaching independence relied on natural—not supernatural—law, just like the Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson.

FIRST REFERENCE Final “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” Draft “When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for a people to advance from that subordination in which they have hitherto remained, & to assume among the powers of the earth the equal & independant station to which the laws of nature & of nature’s god entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the change.” SECOND REFERENCE Final “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Draft “We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable, that all men are created equal and independent, and from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Alteration likely suggested by Franklin and/or Adams.2 THIRD REFERENCE Final “We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congre...

That the four references are broad may actually explain why Christian nationalists claim them as their own. Naturally, readers with such a worldview assume that the Declaration is referring to their god, especially since a claim to hold the ultimate, exclusive truth necessarily entails a belief that that truth is superior to others. But sectarian claims to these references are unsupported by the Declaration’s language.

And, of course, the Judeo-Christian god is described as a creator—in Genesis and at least five times outside the Genesis story9—but every religion that describes a creator-god and deism is defined solely by a belief in a cosmic creator-god. Scholars can argue forever about whether the references are deist or theist, but we can all be sure that they are not Christian. This was almost not the case. Jefferson’s rough draft did contain a mention of the Christian religion—in a section condemning the slave trade. But the Continental Congress removed this passage from the final version. The omitted paragraph helps illuminate another phrase, “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” In the list of King George’s crimes, Jefferson wrote: he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them to slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportations thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative [his veto] for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce…10

Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin knew about George III’s pious nature, especially given that it was in such stark contrast to the bent of his predecessors.12 Including some religion in an argument that is meant to convince a devout Christian king that he’s wrong in the eyes of a god is rhetorically intelligent. Indeed, appealing to a higher power may have been necessary to change the devout king’s opinion. After all, if you believe a god put you on earth to rule, to whom would you answer but a god? One constitutional scholar, Jeffry H. Morrison, has aptly labeled these added references “strategic piety.”13

Course, Laws of Nature, Rights, Life, Liberty, Happiness, Governments, Men, Powers, Form of Government, Right, People, Government, Safety, Happiness, Governments, Object, Despotism, Government, Guards, Colonies, Systems of Government, Tyranny, Facts, Assent to Laws, Governors, Laws, Assent, Laws, Representation, Legislature, Records, Representative Houses, Legislative, Annihilation, People, State, States, Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners, Appropriations of Lands, Administration of Justice, Assent to Laws, Judiciary, Judges, Will, New Offices, Officers, Standing Armies, Consent, Military, Civil, Assent, Acts, Legislation, Quartering, Trial, Murders, Inhabitants, States, Trade, Taxes, Consent, Trial by Jury, Seas, System, Laws, Province, Arbitrary, Boundaries, Colonies, Charters, Laws, Forms of our Governments, Legislatures, Government, Protection, War, Coasts, Lives, Armies, Mercenaries, Cruelty, Head, Citizens, Captive, Seas, Arms, Country, Brethren, Hands, Indian Savages, Oppressions, We, Petitioned, Redress, Petitions, Prince, Tyrant, We, Separation, Enemies in War, Peace, Friends, Assembled, Name, Authority, People, That, Right, Absolved, Allegiance, Power, War, Peace, Alliances, Commerce, Acts, Things, Lives, Fortunes, and Honour. Becker wrote that the fact that the engrossed Declaration’s “capitalization and punctuation follo[w] neither previous copies, nor reason, nor the custom of any age known to man, is one of the irremediable evils of life to be accepted wit...

Jefferson’s own words—within the Declaration and in writings penned before and after—support this conclusion. Seventeen years after the Declaration, as secretary of state, Thomas Jefferson wrote Opinion on the French Treaties. In it, he espoused natural law based in human nature: “Questions of natural right are triable by their conformity with the moral sense & reason of man. Those who write treatises of natural law, can only declare what their own moral sense & reason dictate in the several cases they state.”30 The Declaration, a pinnacle of natural law, is built on humans’ moral sense and reason. Two years before that document, in A Summary View of the Rights of British America, Jefferson, in a precursor to the Declaration’s litany of crimes, listed the grievances against the king:

with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate…. To give praise which is not due might be well from the venal, but would ill beseem those who are asserting the rights of human nature. They know, and will therefore say, that kings are the servants, not the proprietors of the people.31