Centennial Institute
Centennial Review
Colorado Christian University
8787 W. Alameda Ave.
Lakewood, CO 80226
Return Service Requested
Centennial Review
April 2010
Roots of American Liberty:
Our Debt to the Anglosphere
By James C. Bennett
Which Way America?
By John Andrews
www.CentennialCCU.org is your on-
line resource for this and previous issues
of Centennial Review, news of Institute
events, and daily updates on faith, fam-
ily, and freedom at our '76 Blog. illusion: It is real. But it exists within a
Tax-deductible contributions from
friends make possible the Institute’s
outreach and all of Colorado Christian
University’s educational work. We in-
vite your support via our Web site at
www.CentennialCCU.org or at the above
mailing address. We think of the United States as a young country, but
constitutionalism, juries, representation, presumption
of innocence, and local rights are ancient mechanisms
for safeguarding liberty. They are in danger from the
excessive growth of statute laws, making the conduct of
everyday life and business subject to prosecution at will
by aggressive, ambitious government officials.
When we have maintained our ancient mechanisms
we have been free, strong, and prosperous. When not,
we have suffered. Freedom is an art, not a science. It
requires constant attention, refinement, and knowledge.
It is endangered today by a false understanding of our
rights and history. The vast proliferation of statutes,
Centennial Review, April 2010 ▪ 4
bureaucracies, and controls has eroded presumption
of innocence, security of property, and freedom itself.
Federal power endangers local self-government, while
international bodies threaten national self-government.
We must properly understand American exceptionalism
in order to defend it. The Anglosphere has historically
been exceptional in being freer, more individualistic,
and more entrepreneurial than other cultures around it.
America has historically been exceptional, even within
the Anglosphere, in widening freedoms and institutions to
make them universally accessible to all.
This is our common heritage and uncommon blessing. We
must understand it, protect it, restore it where it has been
eroded, and pass it along to the next generation. Will we
keep our trust? ■
1. See James C. Bennett, The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-
Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the 21st Century (Rowman &
Littlefield, 2007).
2. See David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in
America (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991).
3. See Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism: The
Family Property and Social Transition (Blackwell Publishers, 1988).
4. See Emmanuel Todd, The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structures
and Social Systems (Basil Blackwell, 1985).
5. See Alan Macfarlane, The Making of the Modern World (New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).
6. See R.R. Davies, The First English Empire: Power and Identities in
the British Isles 1093–1343 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Principled Ideas from the Centennial Institute
Volume 2, Number 3 • April 2010
ROOTS OF AMERICAN LIBERTY:
OUR DEBT TO THE ANGLOSPHERE
By James C. Bennett
Americans have a strong sense of
exceptionalism, seeing themselves
as distinct in important ways from
the rest of the world. This is not an
deeper and older exceptionalism of the
English-speaking peoples. The U.S.A.
owes a grateful debt to that remarkable
civilizational heritage which some of
us call the Anglosphere.1
our roots are old. Our states, which are the fundamental
constitutional units of our country, date back to the initial
charter of Virginia in 1585, and the convening of its first
legislature in 1619. Digging deeper still, we find that, amid
America’s hectic pace of change, there is a strong strain of
continuity dating far before the settlement of these shores.
Recent research confirms what America’s Founders took
for granted: Our institutions are deeply rooted in English
culture and experience. Even the regional differences
within America—dialects, denominational adherences,
customs, and laws—reflect the differences between
regions of origin of their first settlers in the British Isles.2
Legacy of Magna Carta
Some Americans view the origin of the Constitution as
an act of creation by a gathering of geniuses who drew
on a blank sheet of paper an entirely novel system of
government. Such a view would surprise and alarm the
Founders. There is danger in imagining that our rights
were an invention from nothingness by one group of
men acting as philosopher-princes—since another group
of philosopher-princes could just as validly invent new
rights and revoke old ones. Indeed, much of American
progressivism has centered on this very conceit.
The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill
of Rights did not grant us our rights, but rather restated
them. Going before was a long tradition of rights and
liberties stated in a series of documents reaching back
Publisher, William L. Armstrong
Editor, John Andrews
through the English Bill of Rights from the Revolution
of 1688, and ultimately to Magna Carta and the Common
Law tradition that underlies all English-speaking nations.
The American experience was not about creating freedom
but rather expanding it, perfecting it, and guarding it
against the intrusions that had forced the Founders to
rebel in the first place. Every Founder would have agreed
that government can not create rights, but can only secure
them—necessarily remaining a servant rather than a
master, to paraphrase George Washington. To understand
these rights, it is useful to review their origins.
Building Blocks of Our Unique Society
First came our tradition of Common Law founded
on Anglo-Saxon customary law fused with Christian
influence. Everywhere else in Europe, local law was
replaced by Roman civil law—a system whereby the
monarch, acting as philosopher-prince, issues a code of
law and appoints judges to rule over the population as
lesser philosopher-princes, deciding how the code is to be
applied to daily life. The ideal code of civil law prescribes
a law for every facet of existence.
Anglo-American Common Law, in contrast, is based on a
fusion of tribal custom and Christian thought, and descends
from a distinct body of law that emerged in medieval
times. Its three pillars—the precedent system, trial by
jury, and presumption of innocence—were established
by the 13th century. Magna Carta, our first constitutional
document, guaranteed these in 1215. It also secured for
all free citizens the right to refuse entry to law officers
without warrants, and the abolition of judicial torture.
Common Law is critically important to liberty because it
guarantees that law is more than the will of kings; law
exists independently of the executive. By preserving and
applying the cumulative decisions of juries and judges
James C. Bennett is author of The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-
Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the 21st Century, a businessman with
30 years’ experience in high technology and commercial space exploration, a
research contributor to the Hudson Institute and the Reason Foundation, and a
Centennial Institute Fellow. This essay is based on his lecture at Colorado Chris-
tian University on November 20, 2009.
Centennial Institute sponsors research, events, and publications to enhance
public understanding of the most important issues facing our state and nation.
By proclaiming Truth, we aim to foster faith, family, and freedom, teach citizen-
ship, and renew the spirit of 1776.
 over the centuries, it provides a means of checking
abusive government. Underlying Common Law are three
institutions of more than a millennium’s antiquity: sheriffs
and posses, counties and county courts, and militia-based
defense. These institutions ensured that the decisions
about use of government force in everyday life would
remain close to the governed. The only three traditional
personal obligations of England were jury duty, service in
a posse, and militia service. America follows suite.
Thus our Constitution of 1787 was not the first constitutional
check on governmental power. In fact, no executive
ever had unlimited power in English-speaking history. Psychological independence was far stronger in English
Monarchs were always subject to constitutional limits, society, unlike the continent where peasants had a
first traditional, then encoded in constitutional documents legal right to some share of the family’s wealth, and an
starting with Magna
Carta. Magna Carta
Radical movements
was the first in a series egalitarianism never took hold in a matter of academic debate as to how
of “treaties between
crown and people.”
any English-speaking countries. much
The mechanism of the coronation oath made any breach the radical movements for egalitarianism and entitlement
of rights by the crown not merely an offense against the that developed mass followings in continental Europe
people, but an offense against God.
Representation via councils of notables was part of English
constitutional tradition from the beginning. Parliament
emerged in the early Middle Ages, with aristocrats and
commoners both represented. Each group in its own house
had to assent to laws and taxes. Representation was initially
haphazard and limited by today’s standards—essentially,
taxpaying males above a certain level had a vote, and
districts were not equally represented.
Most Had a Voice and a Vote
Many who were not entitled to vote for Parliament had other
forms of representation, however. Towns, professions, and
organizations had elected governing bodies. Any man who
was taxed had some means of representation. England
had strong networks of self-governing institutions long
before universal suffrage. The English were accustomed
to voicing their opinion and voting on matters that affected
them.
English-speaking society also had, and still has,
unique sociological features. Its family structures were
individualistic in the sociological sense, whereas, in
continental Europe, peasant family constraints were
the norm. Land belonged to the family collectively, not
individually, and couldn’t be sold easily. The eldest male
usually controlled the family, including adult children,
until his death. Children lived with the husband’s parents
even after marriage. The head of the family controlled
the family’s property and could grant or deny the right to
marry. Most people never had independence in regard to
the basic decisions of life.
Centennial Review, April 2010 ▪ 2
In England, in contrast, sons and daughters were
independent after age 21. Adult children might seek a
blessing on their choice of mate, but could not be denied
the choice legally. Children moved away from parents and
established a separate household on marriage. Individuals,
not the family, held title to land. Aside from a few upper-
class estates, the owner could leave it to whomever he
or she wanted. Land was a market commodity; people
bought and sold their homes and farms, as opposed to
keeping them for generations. So individuals were mobile.
Relocation within a four-day travel radius was common.3
expectation that the head of the family
for would give them the basics of life. It is
consequence these differences had
on ultimate political development. But
have never done so in any English-speaking countries.4
England also had unique legal-economic institutions.
Corporations on the continent were state-chartered
privileges: To establish one required a favor from the
state. Such corporations existed also in England; the
Virginia Company and other colonization companies were
examples. But England had an additional, unique form of
economic organization: the trust. Unlike the corporation,
the trust was a simple set of private agreements that any
lawyer could set up, not requiring a specific action by the
state. Thus, the trust form was independent of state in
Common Law, and was available to anybody.5 Gradually,
corporations in the English-speaking world became more
like trusts, available to all without favors. The result of all
these factors was to create in England, and subsequently
in America, societies that were substantially more
independent from the state, with a more independent-
minded population than in continental Europe. These
populations devoted a great deal of attention to
CENTENNIAL REVIEW is published monthly by the Centennial Institute at Colorado
Christian University. Publisher, William L. Armstrong. Editor, John Andrews.
Designer, Danielle Hull. Illustrator, Benjamin Hummel.
Subscriptions free upon request. Write to: Centennial Institute, 8787 W.
Alameda Ave., Lakewood, CO 80226. Call 800.44.FAITH. Or visit us online at
www.CentennialCCU.org.
Colorado Christian University seeks to impact the culture in support of traditional
family values, sanctity of life, compassion for the poor, a biblical view of human
nature, limited government, personal freedom, free markets, natural law, original
intent of the Constitution, and Western civilization.
Join the Centennial Institute today. As a Centennial donor, you can help us
restore America’s moral core. Your gift is tax-deductible. Please use the envelope
provided.
maintaining and expanding their free political institutions.
The combination of these favorable influences also fueled
an economic take-off for the Anglosphere.
As England began to clone itself overseas, Americans
were largely self-governing from the start. The colonial
template transplanted England’s successful, unique
culture and institutions to the New World. But Britain’s
imperial constitution later became an obstacle. As thinkers
such as Benjamin Franklin and Adam Smith struggled to
design something more workable, reform was thwarted
by arrogance and indifference in London along with
local rivalries in America. Americans instead undertook
the experiment of re-implementing the sum total of
these institutions—what we might call the “Anglosphere
toolkit”—on their own. In doing so, important changes
were made, changes that laid the groundwork for America’s
actual exceptionalism.
Liberty: Singular and Universal
English freedom had grown incrementally, by a series of
small struggles expanding liberties one by one. English
legal theorists such as Edward Coke saw English rights as
specific to English citizenship and residence. From the first
instances, in the 1200s, of English colonists establishing
communities beyond the borders of England proper, in
Wales or Ireland, the question of what rights they retained,
and by what justification, had been a problem in English
constitutionalism.6
The Declaration of Independence resolved this dilemma
by an appeal to the concept of natural rights, which had
underlain Western political thought since early Christian
times, but was newly restated by philosophers such as John
Locke. America went from upholding a specific claim on
certain historically sanctioned “liberties” to upholding a
general claim on a natural liberty.
Thus were rights universalized and theoretically made
available to all. Much of America’s subsequent history
involved the issues stemming from extension of this vision
to those within and without the country who did not enjoy
full liberty. In this environment, leaders implemented the
full Anglosphere toolkit in America, in the financial area
led by Alexander Hamilton and in the legal area led by John
Marshall and key state jurists. With a strong framework
of sound money and property rights, the United States
enjoyed rapid increase in size, power, and wealth.
Our Exceptional Heritage Now at Risk
An individualistic, freedom-oriented society under a con-
stitutionally constrained, rights-recognizing government
is a rare thing on Earth. The great majority of these so-
cieties have been English-speaking or heavily influenced
by English-speaking nations. Two such nations, Britain
Vo ic e s o f C C U
WHICH WAY AMERICA?
By John Andrews
Will America celebrate another centen-
nial? That year of 2076 is well within
my grandson’s lifetime. Yet historians
have observed that great nations tend to
decline in their third century. While the
United States is exceptional in its free
institutions, as James Bennett points out,
Americans are not exempt from the ordi-
nary weaknesses of human nature.
A cycle spanning about 250 years, noted in the 1770s by
Scottish philosopher Alexander Tytler, traces the rising
fortunes of any people from bondage to spiritual faith to
courage to liberty—with liberty bringing forth abundance
but then devolving from complacency to apathy to depen-
dence, and at last sinking into bondage again.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. The Centennial Institute,
named in honor of America’s founding in 1776 and
Colorado’s statehood in 1876, seeks to foster the courage
and faith by which liberty and abundance can be sustained
as our nation meets the challenges of this new century.
The same goal that guides Colorado Christian University
academically—that of impacting our culture in support of
traditional family values, sanctity of life, compassion for
the poor, a biblical view of human nature, limited govern-
ment, personal freedom, free markets, natural law, original
intent of the Constitution, and Western civilization—is also
Centennial Institute’s aim in the public arena. ■
John Andrews is Director of the Centennial
Centennial
Institute, host of Backbone Radio, a colum-
nist for the Denver Post, a founder of the Institute
State Policy Network, and former President Colorado Christian University
of the Colorado Senate.
and America, have been the leaders of the planet for the
past three centuries. These advantages have not come to
us because we are a superior breed of people. We enjoy
these things because of our cultural and institutional
inheritances, and because of the beliefs that teach us to
guard them.
Unfortunately, political philosophies from quite different
countries have made substantial inroads within our
intellectual and governing classes. A vigorous defense
of values, both political and intellectual, must always be
part of the upkeep of the foundations of a free society.
These values include individualism, self-government at
all levels, free association, secure property, and freedom
of speech and conscience. They ensure that the work of
society and its goals and directions are generated by the
people working individually and cooperatively, rather than
imposed top-down by a directive state. Common Law,
Centennial Review, April 2010 ▪ 3
 over the centuries, it provides a means of checking
abusive government. Underlying Common Law are three
institutions of more than a millennium’s antiquity: sheriffs
and posses, counties and county courts, and militia-based
defense. These institutions ensured that the decisions
about use of government force in everyday life would
remain close to the governed. The only three traditional
personal obligations of England were jury duty, service in
a posse, and militia service. America follows suite.
Thus our Constitution of 1787 was not the first constitutional
check on governmental power. In fact, no executive
ever had unlimited power in English-speaking history. Psychological independence was far stronger in English
Monarchs were always subject to constitutional limits, society, unlike the continent where peasants had a
first traditional, then encoded in constitutional documents legal right to some share of the family’s wealth, and an
starting with Magna
Carta. Magna Carta
Radical movements
was the first in a series egalitarianism never took hold in a matter of academic debate as to how
of “treaties between
crown and people.”
any English-speaking countries. much
The mechanism of the coronation oath made any breach the radical movements for egalitarianism and entitlement
of rights by the crown not merely an offense against the that developed mass followings in continental Europe
people, but an offense against God.
Representation via councils of notables was part of English
constitutional tradition from the beginning. Parliament
emerged in the early Middle Ages, with aristocrats and
commoners both represented. Each group in its own house
had to assent to laws and taxes. Representation was initially
haphazard and limited by today’s standards—essentially,
taxpaying males above a certain level had a vote, and
districts were not equally represented.
Most Had a Voice and a Vote
Many who were not entitled to vote for Parliament had other
forms of representation, however. Towns, professions, and
organizations had elected governing bodies. Any man who
was taxed had some means of representation. England
had strong networks of self-governing institutions long
before universal suffrage. The English were accustomed
to voicing their opinion and voting on matters that affected
them.
English-speaking society also had, and still has,
unique sociological features. Its family structures were
individualistic in the sociological sense, whereas, in
continental Europe, peasant family constraints were
the norm. Land belonged to the family collectively, not
individually, and couldn’t be sold easily. The eldest male
usually controlled the family, including adult children,
until his death. Children lived with the husband’s parents
even after marriage. The head of the family controlled
the family’s property and could grant or deny the right to
marry. Most people never had independence in regard to
the basic decisions of life.
Centennial Review, April 2010 ▪ 2
In England, in contrast, sons and daughters were
independent after age 21. Adult children might seek a
blessing on their choice of mate, but could not be denied
the choice legally. Children moved away from parents and
established a separate household on marriage. Individuals,
not the family, held title to land. Aside from a few upper-
class estates, the owner could leave it to whomever he
or she wanted. Land was a market commodity; people
bought and sold their homes and farms, as opposed to
keeping them for generations. So individuals were mobile.
Relocation within a four-day travel radius was common.3
for expectation that the head of the family
would give them the basics of life. It is
consequence these differences had
on ultimate political development. But
have never done so in any English-speaking countries.4
England also had unique legal-economic institutions.
Corporations on the continent were state-chartered
privileges: To establish one required a favor from the
state. Such corporations existed also in England; the
Virginia Company and other colonization companies were
examples. But England had an additional, unique form of
economic organization: the trust. Unlike the corporation,
the trust was a simple set of private agreements that any
lawyer could set up, not requiring a specific action by the
state. Thus, the trust form was independent of state in
Common Law, and was available to anybody.5 Gradually,
corporations in the English-speaking world became more
like trusts, available to all without favors. The result of all
these factors was to create in England, and subsequently
in America, societies that were substantially more
independent from the state, with a more independent-
minded population than in continental Europe. These
populations devoted a great deal of attention to
CENTENNIAL REVIEW is published monthly by the Centennial Institute at Colorado
Christian University. Publisher, William L. Armstrong. Editor, John Andrews.
Designer, Danielle Hull. Illustrator, Benjamin Hummel.
Subscriptions free upon request. Write to: Centennial Institute, 8787 W.
Alameda Ave., Lakewood, CO 80226. Call 800.44.FAITH. Or visit us online at
www.CentennialCCU.org.
Colorado Christian University seeks to impact the culture in support of traditional
family values, sanctity of life, compassion for the poor, a biblical view of human
nature, limited government, personal freedom, free markets, natural law, original
intent of the Constitution, and Western civilization.
Join the Centennial Institute today. As a Centennial donor, you can help us
restore America’s moral core. Your gift is tax-deductible. Please use the envelope
provided.
maintaining and expanding their free political institutions.
The combination of these favorable influences also fueled
an economic take-off for the Anglosphere.
As England began to clone itself overseas, Americans
were largely self-governing from the start. The colonial
template transplanted England’s successful, unique
culture and institutions to the New World. But Britain’s
imperial constitution later became an obstacle. As thinkers
such as Benjamin Franklin and Adam Smith struggled to
design something more workable, reform was thwarted
by arrogance and indifference in London along with
local rivalries in America. Americans instead undertook
the experiment of re-implementing the sum total of
these institutions—what we might call the “Anglosphere
toolkit”—on their own. In doing so, important changes
were made, changes that laid the groundwork for America’s
actual exceptionalism.
Liberty: Singular and Universal
English freedom had grown incrementally, by a series of
small struggles expanding liberties one by one. English
legal theorists such as Edward Coke saw English rights as
specific to English citizenship and residence. From the first
instances, in the 1200s, of English colonists establishing
communities beyond the borders of England proper, in
Wales or Ireland, the question of what rights they retained,
and by what justification, had been a problem in English
constitutionalism.6
The Declaration of Independence resolved this dilemma
by an appeal to the concept of natural rights, which had
underlain Western political thought since early Christian
times, but was newly restated by philosophers such as John
Locke. America went from upholding a specific claim on
certain historically sanctioned “liberties” to upholding a
general claim on a natural liberty.
Thus were rights universalized and theoretically made
available to all. Much of America’s subsequent history
involved the issues stemming from extension of this vision
to those within and without the country who did not enjoy
full liberty. In this environment, leaders implemented the
full Anglosphere toolkit in America, in the financial area
led by Alexander Hamilton and in the legal area led by John
Marshall and key state jurists. With a strong framework
of sound money and property rights, the United States
enjoyed rapid increase in size, power, and wealth.
Our Exceptional Heritage Now at Risk
An individualistic, freedom-oriented society under a con-
stitutionally constrained, rights-recognizing government
is a rare thing on Earth. The great majority of these so-
cieties have been English-speaking or heavily influenced
by English-speaking nations. Two such nations, Britain
Vo ic e s o f C C U
WHICH WAY AMERICA?
By John Andrews
Will America celebrate another centen-
nial? That year of 2076 is well within
my grandson’s lifetime. Yet historians
have observed that great nations tend to
decline in their third century. While the
United States is exceptional in its free
institutions, as James Bennett points out,
Americans are not exempt from the ordi-
nary weaknesses of human nature.
A cycle spanning about 250 years, noted in the 1770s by
Scottish philosopher Alexander Tytler, traces the rising
fortunes of any people from bondage to spiritual faith to
courage to liberty—with liberty bringing forth abundance
but then devolving from complacency to apathy to depen-
dence, and at last sinking into bondage again.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. The Centennial Institute,
named in honor of America’s founding in 1776 and
Colorado’s statehood in 1876, seeks to foster the courage
and faith by which liberty and abundance can be sustained
as our nation meets the challenges of this new century.
The same goal that guides Colorado Christian University
academically—that of impacting our culture in support of
traditional family values, sanctity of life, compassion for
the poor, a biblical view of human nature, limited govern-
ment, personal freedom, free markets, natural law, original
intent of the Constitution, and Western civilization—is also
Centennial Institute’s aim in the public arena. ■
John Andrews is Director of the Centennial
Centennial
Institute, host of Backbone Radio, a colum-
nist for the Denver Post, a founder of the Institute
State Policy Network, and former President Colorado Christian University
of the Colorado Senate.
and America, have been the leaders of the planet for the
past three centuries. These advantages have not come to
us because we are a superior breed of people. We enjoy
these things because of our cultural and institutional
inheritances, and because of the beliefs that teach us to
guard them.
Unfortunately, political philosophies from quite different
countries have made substantial inroads within our
intellectual and governing classes. A vigorous defense
of values, both political and intellectual, must always be
part of the upkeep of the foundations of a free society.
These values include individualism, self-government at
all levels, free association, secure property, and freedom
of speech and conscience. They ensure that the work of
society and its goals and directions are generated by the
people working individually and cooperatively, rather than
imposed top-down by a directive state. Common Law,
Centennial Review, April 2010 ▪ 3
 Centennial Institute
Colorado Christian University
8787 W. Alameda Ave.
Lakewood, CO 80226
Return Service Requested
Centennial Review
April 2010
Roots of American Liberty:
Our Debt to the Anglosphere
By James C. Bennett
Which Way America?
By John Andrews
www.CentennialCCU.org is your on-
line resource for this and previous issues
of Centennial Review, news of Institute
events, and daily updates on faith, fam-
ily, and freedom at our '76 Blog. illusion: It is real. But it exists within a
Tax-deductible contributions from
friends make possible the Institute’s
outreach and all of Colorado Christian
University’s educational work. We in-
vite your support via our Web site at
www.CentennialCCU.org or at the above
mailing address. We think of the United States as a young country, but
constitutionalism, juries, representation, presumption
of innocence, and local rights are ancient mechanisms
for safeguarding liberty. They are in danger from the
excessive growth of statute laws, making the conduct of
everyday life and business subject to prosecution at will
by aggressive, ambitious government officials.
When we have maintained our ancient mechanisms
we have been free, strong, and prosperous. When not,
we have suffered. Freedom is an art, not a science. It
requires constant attention, refinement, and knowledge.
It is endangered today by a false understanding of our
rights and history. The vast proliferation of statutes,
Centennial Review, April 2010 ▪ 4
bureaucracies, and controls has eroded presumption
of innocence, security of property, and freedom itself.
Federal power endangers local self-government, while
international bodies threaten national self-government.
We must properly understand American exceptionalism
in order to defend it. The Anglosphere has historically
been exceptional in being freer, more individualistic,
and more entrepreneurial than other cultures around it.
America has historically been exceptional, even within
the Anglosphere, in widening freedoms and institutions to
make them universally accessible to all.
This is our common heritage and uncommon blessing. We
must understand it, protect it, restore it where it has been
eroded, and pass it along to the next generation. Will we
keep our trust? ■
1. See James C. Bennett, The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-
Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the 21st Century (Rowman &
Littlefield, 2007).
2. See David Hackett Fischer, Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in
America (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1991).
3. See Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism: The
Family Property and Social Transition (Blackwell Publishers, 1988).
4. See Emmanuel Todd, The Explanation of Ideology: Family Structures
and Social Systems (Basil Blackwell, 1985).
5. See Alan Macfarlane, The Making of the Modern World (New York,
NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002).
6. See R.R. Davies, The First English Empire: Power and Identities in
the British Isles 1093–1343 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).
Centennial Review
Principled Ideas from the Centennial Institute
Volume 2, Number 3 • April 2010
ROOTS OF AMERICAN LIBERTY:
OUR DEBT TO THE ANGLOSPHERE
By James C. Bennett
Americans have a strong sense of
exceptionalism, seeing themselves
as distinct in important ways from
the rest of the world. This is not an
deeper and older exceptionalism of the
English-speaking peoples. The U.S.A.
owes a grateful debt to that remarkable
civilizational heritage which some of
us call the Anglosphere.1
our roots are old. Our states, which are the fundamental
constitutional units of our country, date back to the initial
charter of Virginia in 1585, and the convening of its first
legislature in 1619. Digging deeper still, we find that, amid
America’s hectic pace of change, there is a strong strain of
continuity dating far before the settlement of these shores.
Recent research confirms what America’s Founders took
for granted: Our institutions are deeply rooted in English
culture and experience. Even the regional differences
within America—dialects, denominational adherences,
customs, and laws—reflect the differences between
regions of origin of their first settlers in the British Isles.2
Legacy of Magna Carta
Some Americans view the origin of the Constitution as
an act of creation by a gathering of geniuses who drew
on a blank sheet of paper an entirely novel system of
government. Such a view would surprise and alarm the
Founders. There is danger in imagining that our rights
were an invention from nothingness by one group of
men acting as philosopher-princes—since another group
of philosopher-princes could just as validly invent new
rights and revoke old ones. Indeed, much of American
progressivism has centered on this very conceit.
The Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill
of Rights did not grant us our rights, but rather restated
them. Going before was a long tradition of rights and
liberties stated in a series of documents reaching back
Publisher, William L. Armstrong
Editor, John Andrews
through the English Bill of Rights from the Revolution
of 1688, and ultimately to Magna Carta and the Common
Law tradition that underlies all English-speaking nations.
The American experience was not about creating freedom
but rather expanding it, perfecting it, and guarding it
against the intrusions that had forced the Founders to
rebel in the first place. Every Founder would have agreed
that government can not create rights, but can only secure
them—necessarily remaining a servant rather than a
master, to paraphrase George Washington. To understand
these rights, it is useful to review their origins.
Building Blocks of Our Unique Society
First came our tradition of Common Law founded
on Anglo-Saxon customary law fused with Christian
influence. Everywhere else in Europe, local law was
replaced by Roman civil law—a system whereby the
monarch, acting as philosopher-prince, issues a code of
law and appoints judges to rule over the population as
lesser philosopher-princes, deciding how the code is to be
applied to daily life. The ideal code of civil law prescribes
a law for every facet of existence.
Anglo-American Common Law, in contrast, is based on a
fusion of tribal custom and Christian thought, and descends
from a distinct body of law that emerged in medieval
times. Its three pillars—the precedent system, trial by
jury, and presumption of innocence—were established
by the 13th century. Magna Carta, our first constitutional
document, guaranteed these in 1215. It also secured for
all free citizens the right to refuse entry to law officers
without warrants, and the abolition of judicial torture.
Common Law is critically important to liberty because it
guarantees that law is more than the will of kings; law
exists independently of the executive. By preserving and
applying the cumulative decisions of juries and judges
James C. Bennett is author of The Anglosphere Challenge: Why the English-
Speaking Nations Will Lead the Way in the 21st Century, a businessman with
30 years’ experience in high technology and commercial space exploration, a
research contributor to the Hudson Institute and the Reason Foundation, and a
Centennial Institute Fellow. This essay is based on his lecture at Colorado Chris-
tian University on November 20, 2009.
Centennial Institute sponsors research, events, and publications to enhance
public understanding of the most important issues facing our state and nation.
By proclaiming Truth, we aim to foster faith, family, and freedom, teach citizen-
ship, and renew the spirit of 1776.