By Darius A. Lecointe, PhD, JD
It should by now be obvious that the interpretations of history that are not emphasized may hold the key to the future. Much of what we accept as “American history” begins too late and explains too little. We start with the English colonies and their revolt against Great Britain, overlooking the deeper question: Why did those who fled persecution choose to establish their new communities under royal charters rather than under divine conscience?
The standard answer — that they sought legal protection and economic security — reveals the very misstep that shaped the American experiment. The Puritans and Separatists who crossed the Atlantic were not pioneers of liberty in the purest sense; they were participants in a hybrid project that combined faith and license, conviction and concession.
A Forgotten Precedent
Long before the Pilgrims set sail, a small group of Christians in Europe had already faced a similar trial. Fleeing the persecution of Emperor Diocletian in the early fourth century, they sought refuge on Mount Titano, high above the Adriatic coast. Guided by a stonemason named Marinus — later canonized as Saint Marinus — they founded a community dedicated to the principle of freedom of conscience.
Around 600 CE they adopted a Constitution that transformed that settlement into the Republic of San Marino, the world’s oldest surviving republic. For over seventeen centuries it has remained independent, not through conquest or expansion, but through moral coherence. Its founders sought no charter from emperor or pope. Their legitimacy came from unity of conscience.
In that light, the American colonies’ choice to seek royal charters rather than self-constitute was more consequential than we realize. Their claim to moral independence was undermined at its birth by the dependence they accepted in law.
Identity Before Governance
San Marino demonstrates that identity precedes governance. A people must first know who they are before deciding how they will rule or be ruled. The early Christians of Mount Titano formed a moral compact before a political one. In essence, their community was their constitution.
Unfortunately, the English colonies were corporations before they were communities. The Crown granted permission to settle; governance followed economic purpose. Only later did religious refugees blend into this framework, altering its tone but not its foundation.
Even the Massachusetts Bay Colony — established by Puritans seeking religious freedom — operated under a royal charter that defined its existence in commercial terms. This fusion of moral and mercantile motives explains why American political development has always oscillated between moral aspiration and material ambition.
The Birth of Constitutional Infidelity
The failure (or inability) to ground the new society in moral self-definition rather than royal permission laid the foundation for what might be called constitutional infidelity. When the Declaration of Independence severed the legal tie with Britain, it did not sever the habit of seeking validation from authority.
Even as Americans proclaimed that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed, they built a system that deferred moral agency to institutions rather than conscience. The Puritans’ reliance on charters mirrored, in miniature, our later reliance on judicial supremacy — the belief that authority must descend from above rather than rise from within.
That pattern persists today. We invoke courts to rescue us from political failures, as though moral judgment were a matter of jurisdiction. The separation of powers has become a separation from responsibility.
The San Marinian Lesson
San Marino endures because its order rests on fidelity, not force. Its founders proved that the strength of a constitutional system depends on moral coherence, not size or wealth. They never claimed infallibility — only integrity.
America’s founders built a brilliant structure but neglected the foundation. They assumed a written Constitution could substitute for a shared moral compass. But documents do not protect nations; people do. The Oath of Allegiance is meaningful only if the community understands that the Constitution represents a covenant, not a contract.
Rediscovering the Forgotten Blueprint
As America nears its 250th year, “renewing the Constitution” should mean rediscovery, not revision. The pilgrims could have followed San Marino’s example — forming a community bound by principle before law. Their failure to do so set in motion the constitutional contradictions that still haunt us.
To recover fidelity, we must reverse that order:
Principle before power. Conscience before command. Identity before governance.
The path forward may therefore lie not in innovation, but in rediscovery — in returning to the moral architecture that early Americans ignored and that San Marino quietly preserved for over a millennium.
Header Tags:
#America250 #ConstitutionalFidelity #SanMarino #MarburyvMadison #FoundingLessons #RuleOfConscience #CivicEducation #HydraulicConstitutionalForce
No comments:
Post a Comment