presbyterian in new jersey. and he writes a brief vindication of the purchasers, the people who bought the land against the proprietors in a christian manner in 1746. and this is what he tells the proprietors. the strictly just thought i d join the land and think not by self discharge for the duty of righteous as for the neighbor by an extraordinary measure of pretended zeal and piety towards god coveted the beginning of this misrule and mistake that happened among us. it is plain cause to augment that it was coveted spot in these proprietors as you call them into the plantations of these poor people. so jenkins reason was as if you had to have a reason to improve your land and make more money, but on the face of it, the obvious logical, patriotic, wonderful thing to do. in fact, he says to the proprietors, if there was not some desirable entertainment through the flesh, you would never seek these improvements. so the notion that there is a morally correct amount of ambition
i am delighted to introduce our panel about her this afternoon. barbara clark smith is our scholar from the smithsonian. she is curator of the division of political hiss or at the national museum of american history. her new book is the freedoms we lost consent and resistance in revolutionary america. in this and other publications, clark smith writes about politics and a sharp social historian site for drama and detail. she co-curated a favorite exhibition of mine called jamestown, québec and santa fe, three north american beginning in 2006. john ragosta is an historian and lawyer, our second speaker. he teaches at the uva school of law. he has published three field contemporary law, legal history and early america. his new book is called wellspring of liberty how the religious dissenters hope when the american revolution and secured religious liberty. we can count on the baptists for some good theater. this year, tranter is a research fellow at the selection or at mon
it is quote, the most inestimable lesson that mankind can enjoy. and this author in the 17th century englishman, about 1680s the original, that they should think highly of government. they should insist that the dr. rhee for the happiness and security of all. and so they said, if there be any form of government amongst non-with the supreme magistrate is not vested with enough power to protect the people and promote their prosperity or if there be any such constitution as enables the prints to injure an oppressed set date, such constitutions are inconsistent with civil society. well, part of this is familiar that she can t have the prints and pressing the people appeared part is less familiar and in fact, it is worth noting the effect comes in second to the danger of being incapable government. [laughter] this was not an endorsement of governments that governs least sm later thinkers but pernod. it s rather endorsement of government that is accountable and the fact is, mindful