This page is intended to provide a guide to some of the key
arguments used in the debates among American patriots, loyalists,
and the English in the era of the American Revolution. Click
here if you would prefer to read an abridged version of this material.
An Introduction to Selected
Core Arguments
of the Rhetoric of the Revolution
The war of words between America and England began long before
the actual outbreak of hostilities in the revolutionary era. Unfortunately,
present-day readers may find it difficult to follow those battles
because the language, ideas, and writing and speaking styles of
the eighteenth century seem so foreign from our own.
There is, however, a key that can be used to "unlock"
the meaning of the essays, broadsides, pamphlets, petitions, declarations,
and other texts composed by Americans in their fight for expanded
rights. Almost all of the texts employed the same set of key arguments,
and learning to recognize and understand those arguments provides
a foundation for analyzing both their rhetoric (methods of persuasion)
and content.
As you might imagine, many of the same core arguments used by
American patriot writers also turn up in the rhetoric of American
loyalists and British tories, but turned upside down. So, for
example, the idea that parents are responsible for taking good
care of their children is used by patriot writers to demonstrate
the need to break away from an abusive parent, while the related
concept that children owe obedience to parents is used by English
sympathizers to urge submission.
In general, tory and loyalist writing also urges the importance
of order while warning against the dangers of disorder, while
patriot writing emhasizes the primary importance of rights and
liberty. Some have argued that these two different modes of thought
can be used to characterize debates over the appropriate way of
distributing power throughout history. British enlightenment philosopher
David Hume pointed out in his essay "Of the People,"
that the
just balance between the republican and monarchical part of
our constitution is really, in itself, so extremely delicate
and uncertain, that . . . it is impossible but different opinions
must arise concerning it, even among persons of the best understanding.
Those of mild tempers, who love peace and order, and detest
sedition and civil wars, will always entertain more favourable
sentiments of monarchy, than men of bold and generous spirits,
who are passionate lovers of liberty, and think no evil comparable
to subjection and slavery.
Thomas Jefferson made a somewhat similar comment in a distinctively
different tone of voice when he wrote in a letter to Lafayette
in November of 1823: "In truth, the parties of Whig and Tory
are those of nature. . . . The sickly, weakly, timid man fears
the people, and is a Tory by nature. The healthy, strong and bold,
cherishes them, and is formed a Whig by nature." It is not
hard to tell which side Jefferson was on.
During the era of the American revolution, sometimes a writer
or orator would develop a number of what I cam calling "core
arguments" at some length, devoting one or more paragraphs(or
pages) to the development of each concept. At other times, the
writer or speaker would use a kind of rhetorical "shorthand"
to refer to a concept without bothering to develop an extended
explanation or provide evidence of the point. The fact that these
arguments were such a standard part of revolutionary-era thinking,
writing, and speaking meant that the appearance of a particular
word or phrase would automatically trigger in the minds of the
audience a rich set of associations.
In fact, a great many of the same arguments that made up the
repertoire of American revolutionary rhetoric in the 1760's and
1770's had already long been in use in England as the ongoing
struggle between the monarchy, parliament, and people over the
proper allocation of rights and power. While lthough concepts
such as "the law of Nature" developed new meanings over
the years, the familiarity of these principles meant that that
when a person in late eighteenth century America or Britain heard
a phrase like "natural law" or "unatural parent"
s/he could draw upon a depth of understanding that is difficult
to commprehend for a present-day reader.
In practical terms, this meant that writers and speakers on both
sides of the debate could use a kind of short-hand by employing
familiar phrases that instantly introduced arguments that had
grown in meaning and emotional import over hundreds of years.
This relieved authors of the necessity of fully developing the
arguments unless they chose to do so. Short but dense clusters
of code words or phrases can also often be found in the openings
or closings of texts, where they function as a a preview, concluding
summary, or even "vision statement" of the position
of the author. You can see these tactics in operation in the
Fast-Day Proclamation Governnor Jonathan Trumbull issued on December
19, 1775 to urge the people of Connecticut to resist those who:
threaten us with general Destruction, for no other Reason known
to us, than that we will not surrender our Liberties, Properties,
and Privileges, which we believe God and Nature, the British Constitution,
and our Sacred Charters give us a just right to enjoy.
(You may want to consider how many of the core arguments listed
above appear in this statement.) The ability to make short-hand
arguments was particularly useful to those making brief statements.
The Declaration of Independence, for example, is quite short when
you consider the broad extent of the historical, political, and
philosophical territory to which it lays claim.
Even when a speech or piece of writing was designed to focus
on a select number of specific arguments, this rhetorical shorthand
also allowed the author to supercharge those arguments by including
occasional code words or phrases that brought with them the intellectual
and emotional power of other concepts that were not part of the
main focus.
But why do we so often encounter such a large number of arguments
crammed into a single text in the revolutionary era? Is it evidence
of the use of a crude or sophisticated rhetorical style? One possibility
is that people were trying to load their texts with as much amunition
as possible. Sometimes a piece of persuasion that collects together
a wide variety of points is referred to as making a "grapeshot"
argument. "Grapeshot" was a kind of ammunition used
in cannons. To put together a "grapeshot" charge, you
would collect a large number of metal balls, scraps, or other
projectiles and put them into a canvas bag or metal cannister.
Sometimes the individual balls were clustered together and attached
with metal rods. Although this kind of ammunition was not suitable
for use if you wished to aim with accuracy at a specific target,
it was very useful if you wanted to be able to point
your cannon in the general direction of the enemy with the assurance
that at least one of your projectiles would hit something. That
could also explain the strategy behind these texts that offer
assortments of arguments.
Something that seems to support the idea that collections of
core arguments functioned essentially as grapeshot ammunition
comes from the fact that so many of these points seem to contradict
one another. For example, how could a person writing a brief text
argue that Americans deserve "constitutional rights"
because they were part of England and at the same time claim that
the Puritan settlers split from England in order to find freedom?
How could a speaker insist on the idea that all things can be
explained by reason alone while also using references from the
Bible as evidence?
Let's be honest about this. In some cases people were undoubtedly
collecting every projectile available into whatever kind of canvas
bag was available. Since this same method was use on both sides,
it is likely that this method of combining arguments that represented
an "assortment" of viewpoints was an accepted model
of rhetoric. In other cases, those writing or speaking may have
not seen the inconsistency that is so clear to us today. For example,
it is sadly the case that many of those who protested in the loudest
possible terms against what they called the attempt of "tyrants"
to turn "freemen" into "slaves" failed to
see that the same logic should have led them to emancipate the
slaves they held in America. One of the inconsistencies we encounter
most frequently in revolutionary-era documents is an insistence
on the primacy of reason combined with arguments that draw upon
Puritan or other God-centered thinking. It is possible to imagine
that as new ways of thinking became popular, they did not immediately
displace all previous modes of thinking but instead existed alongside
them in the minds of the people. For example, even today the fact
that science has demonstrated that colds are not caused by having
wet feet or sitting in a draft, we routinely find ourselves taking
almost primitive ritualistic precautions when we happen to get
wet and cold. And as new modes of thought are introduced, people
sometimes develop new interpretations of their previous beliefs
and continue to incorporate them into their way of thinking about
the world. Thus, the enlightenment emphasis on religion and science
did not eliminate church-going but instead caused many people
to change the way they thought about God and religion.
However, as you become acquainted with the core arguments of
the debate that was going on in this period, you can sometimes
begin to see how seemingly disparate arguments not only connect
to one another but cohere. When Americans insisted that they were,
in fact, "Englishmen" and entitled to English rights,
they had to point to their colonial charters to back up that claim,
and they needed to refer to the concepts of "natural law,"
"divine law," "classical republics," and the
notion of governments having the responsibilities of parents in
order to define just what those rights should be. Moreover, arguments
about "natural law" and "divine law" often
depend on one another, because natural law is so often described
as God's plan for mankind. Even when Americans insisted that their
forefathers had fled England in search of freedom, the very act
of seeking independence marked them as part of the English tradition
of working towards an expansion of popular rights. In fact, in
a sense, the first Puritan settlement was designed to serve as
a model for the rest of English culture. As Governor Winthrop
proclaimed in "A Model of Christian Charity" while still
onboard the ship Arabella before he and his fellow passengers
had even set foot on American ground: ""We shall be
as a City upon a Hill, the eyes of all people are upon us."
While Bernard Bailyn has argued in The Ideological Origins
of the Revolution that these "clusters of ideas . .
. did not in themselves form a coherent intellectual pattern,"
he went on to suggest that "what brought these disparate
strands of thought together . . . and shaped it into a coherent
whole" was the long tradition of "radical" English
writers "united in criticism of 'court' and ministerial power."
This mean that you can use the following list of core arguments
to identify and interpret particular rhetorical points being raised
by an author, but that you should also consider the wys in which
these points are combined to formulate more complex arguments.
On the pages linked below, you will find a brief explanation
of a select set of the central arguments that fueled the writing
of Jefferson, John and Sam Adams, Franklin as well as the work
of their confederates and opponents. Once you understand those
claims, it becomes much easier to understand individual texts.
It also becomes possible to see how the documents of the contending
parties engage in a serious conversation on many of the most fundamental
issues of life. John Adams claimed that "The
Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people . . . . This
radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections
of the people, was the real American Revolution." As we continue
today to debate the central issues of national and international
life, we can continue to profit from the remarkable conversation
that not only led to, but in a sense was, "the real American
Revolution."
Included among the core arguments are the following:
CORE ARGUMENTS
Americans
are "Englishmen" and Englishmen have Earned Constitutional
Rights
According to this argument, although those who first settled
America had left England many years before, the charters given
to them by the King at that time guaranteed that the original
colonists and their descendents would continue to be Englishmen.
For example, accordig to the "Charter
of Massachusetts Bay" issued by the king in 1629:
Wee doe hereby for Us, our Heires and Successors, ordeyne and
declare, and graunte to the saide Governor and Company and their
Successors, That all and every the Subjects of Us, our Heires
or Successors, which shall goe to and inhabite within the saide
Landes and Premisses hereby mentioned to be graunted, and every
of their Children which shall happen to be borne there, or on
the Seas in goeing thither, or retorning from thence, shall
have and enjoy all liberties and Immunities of free and naturall
Subjects within any of the Domynions of Us, our Heires or Successors,
to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if
they and everie of them were borne within the Realme of England.
Thus, the colonists are "Englishmen" and deserve all
the rights guaranteed by the English constitution.
Although George III held the throne of English during the era
of the American revolution, his "subjects" in England
and America did not necessarily think of themselves as living
under a monarchical government. The series of events and agreements
had gradually transformed the narrowly monarchical government
of the middle ages into a system of power sharing between the
monarchy, legislature, and courts. By the eighteenth century,
the Englishwere generally able to regard themselves as a free
people who enjoyed the benefits of a government with a balance
of power designed to restrict the dangers of real tyranny. Rather
than seeing monrachies and republics as two mutually exclusive
forms of government, many people in eighteenth-century England
and America regarded the British government as including elements
of both models.
Yet the frequent allusions made by the patriots to the protections
guaranteed by the English constitution may seem perplexing because
England has never had a written constitution. However, the term
is used to refer to the general set of rights and priviledges
set forth in such documents as the Magna
Carta (also known as "'The Great Charter of the Liberties
of England") and the English
Bill of Rights. In the final and most heated days of debate
between the Americans and the British government, the committee
appointed by the Massachusetts Provincial Congress to recommend
a design an official seal decided to emphasize the importance
of the colony's original charter rights by resuming the use of
a seal similar to that one used under the first charter. However,
the record shows that when the full council met to vote on the
recommendation, a change was made.
In Council, August 5, 1775.
Read and accepted with this Amendment, viz. Instead
of an Indian holding a Tomahawk and Cap of Liberty, there be
an English American, holding a Sword in the Right Hand, and
Magna Charta in the Left Hand, with the words "Magna
Charta," imprinted on it.
Another important protection of English rights was the common
law. Unlike those laws written by a legislature and kept up to
date in the legal codes, the "common law" is based on
long agreed-upon understandings of right practice as interpreted
by judges. In his 1713 History
of the Common Law , Matthew Hale described it as:
Those parts of the law . . . not set down in Writing in that
Manner, or with that
Authority that Acts of Parliament are, but [instead] are grown
into
Use, and have acquired their binding Power and the Force of
Laws
by a long and immemorial Usage, and by the Strength of Custom
and
Reception in this Kingdom. The Matters indeed, and the Substance
of those Laws, are in Writing, but the formal and obliging Force
and Power of them grows by long Custom and Use.
Sir Coke,
an English judge famous for his defense (and liberal interpretation)
of the common law, wrote in The First Part of the Institutes
of the Laws of England: "if it be the generall custome
of the realme, it is part of the common law itself is nothing
else but reason, gotten by long study, observation, and experience.
. . " Jefferson and other revolutionary leaders would have
studied Coke's legal commentaries as part of their education as
lawyers. (When asked by a young friend for suggestions
about books to read for his legal education, Jefferson included
Coke in his recommendations.)
Americans often expressed their admiration for the English people
who had struggled for centuries to expand their rights. This is
why we sometimes find Americans representing their own resistance
to "tyranny" as a continuation of the English tradition
of pursuing the expansion of rights. However, even though the
activities that led up to and continued through the American revolution
can be seen as a continuation of or as a parallel to the historic
English tradition of struggling for expanded rights, the pace
of the struggle in America was accelerated by the fact that colonial
charters and culture made many Americans familiar with participative
democracy and resistant to top-down government as well as the
idea of the separation of social classes.
If you see any of the following references or terms in a text
from the revolutionary era, consider whether the author is using
this argument: Englishmen, freemen, rights, Magna
Carta (or Magna Charta), constitution,
Sir Coke.
Natural Law
Guarantees All Human Beings Fundamental Rights
"Natural
Law" is a name used to refer to one or more of the following
beliefs:
- All individuals are entitled at birth to certain "natural
rights" that guarantee their personal safety and property.
- All human beings are endowed with reason so they are able
to distinguish right from wrong.
- Human beings sometimes enter into a "social contract"
to form an association/ government that will protect the life
and property of the members and promote their welfare.
- When a ruler or legislature acts against the welfare of the
people, the government no longer deserves the submission of
the people.
Long before the enlightenment, the existence of some form of
"natural law" had been accepted through most of Anglo-American
civilization.
In England:
As far back as 1598, we can see some of the arguments that
were later appering in the pamphlet James I wrote in order to
convince his subjects of the necessity of a strong monarchy.
It is clear in "The
Trew Law of Free Monarchies: or The Reciprock and Mutual Dutie
Betwixt a Free King, and His Naturall Subiects that James
I selected those arguments which expressed his own position
while also simultaneously countering the typical arguments of
his adversaries. In the prefatory remarks included in his"Advertisement
to the Reader" clearly designed to charm it's audience,
James wrote of the pamphlet:
if it be not sententious, at least it is short. It may be
yee misse many things that yee looke for in it: But for excuse
thereof; consider rightly that I onely lay downe herein the
trew grounds, to teach you the right-way, without wasting
time vpon refuting the adversaries. And yet I trust, if ye
will take narrow tent, ye shall finde most of their great
gunnes payed home againe, either with contrary conclusions,
or tacite objection.'
(Even if you are in complete opposition to the positions James
takes in the pamphlet, how can you resist being grateful for
a document that is "not sententious" and "short"?)
This statement makes it quite clear that the points raised in
the text represented ideas in common use on both sides of the
debate taking place in the late sixteenth century. And what
arguments did James propose?
First then, I will set downe the trew grounds, whereupon
I am to build, out of the Scriptures, since Monarchie is the
trew paterne of Diuinitie, as I haue already said: next, from
the fundamental Lawes of our owne Kingdome, which nearest
must concerne vs: thirdly, from the law of Nature, by diuers
similitudes drawne out of the same: and will conclude syne
by answering the most weighty and appearing incommodities
that can be obiected.
Here we encounter once again the concepts of divine law and
natural law, although interpreted quite differently than they
were by James's opponents and the American revolutionaries who
came over a century and a half later. Notice that the subtitle
-- "The Reciprock and Mutuall Dutie Betwixt a Free King,
and His Naturall Subjects" -- it is the king who is "free"
according to James, while it is only "natural" that
the other people are "subjects."
In America, the Puritans regarded it as a part of nature that
human beings should seek liberty, but this was was a source of
concern rather than celebration. John Winthrop, who was put on
trial for exceeding his authority as governor general of Massachusetts
in 1645 and ultimately was acquitted. Unlike James, Winthrop believed
that God's authority was awarded to those chosen by the people.
He argued that "The great questions that have troubled the
country are about the authority of the magistrates and the liberty
of the people. It is yourselves who have called us to this office,
and, being called by you, we have our authority from God "
Upon his acquittal, Winthrop made a short speech in the courtroom
(now sometimes published under the title "On
Liberty") warning his fellows of the dangers of unchecked
freedom:.
There is a twofold liberty, natural (I mean as our nature is
now corrupt) and civil or federal. The first is common to man
with beasts and other creatures. By this, man, as he stands
in relation to man simply, hath liberty to do what he lists;
it is a liberty to evil as well as to good. This liberty is
incompatible and inconsistent with authority and cannot endure
the least restraint of the most just authority. The exercise
and maintaining of this liberty makes men grow more evil and
in time to be worse than brute beasts: omnes sumus licentia
deteriores. This is that great enemy of truth and peace, that
wild beast, which all of the ordinances of God are bent against,
to restrain and subdue it. The other kind of liberty I call
civil or federal; it may also be termed moral, in reference
to the covenant between God and man, in the moral law, and the
politic covenants and constitutions amongst men themselves.
This liberty is the proper end and object of authority and cannot
subsist without it; and it is a liberty to that only which is
good, just, and honest.
In other words, Puritans often distrusted "natural"
impulses that they regarded as an expression of brutish impulses
and believed in the importance of "civil" liberty to
provide order. However, this way of thinking about nature saw
God as putting his imprimatur not on a king (who would serve as
God's representative) but instead on those chosen by the people.
With the rise of the enlightenment, the Calvinist view of human
beings who needed to struggle against their animalistic tendencies
towards an optimistic vision of human beings as creatures of reason
and (For brief descriptions of the Enlightenment see the entries
in The Encyclopedia
of World History, The
Columbia Encyclopedia, The
Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "Enlightenment"
at www.philosopher.org.uk
and a Study
Guide to the Enlightenment constructed by Professor Paul Brians
of Washington State University.)
Algernon
Sidney, in his 1698 Discourses
Concerning Government, offers a standard definition of one
of the first principles of natural law theory when he writes that
"man is naturally free; that he cannot justly be deprived
of that liberty without cause, and that he doth not resign it,
or any part of it, unless it be in consideration of a greater
good, which he proposes to himself." Similarly, Locke states
clearly his Second
Treatise of Civil Government (1690) :
every man has a property in his own person: this no body has
any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work
of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then
he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left
it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something
that is his own, and thereby makes it his property.
When people choose to join a society or form a government, the
purpose of that organization is to protect and promote the good
of the participants. As John Locke writes his Second
Treatise of Civil Government (1690): The great and chief end
. . .of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves
under government, is the preservation of their property."
Thus, according to this philosophy, any group has the right to
withdraw from a government if it is failing to look after their
best interests. As Locke explains in Section 222 of Chapter 19:
The reason why men enter into society, is the preservation
of their property [so] whenever the legislators endeavour to
take away, and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce
them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into
a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from
any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge, which
God hath provided for all men, against force and violence.
In section 233, Locke goes on to apply the same reasoning to
monarchs, arguing that
If the king shall shew an hatred, not only to some particular
persons, but sets himself against the body of the common-wealth,
whereof he is the head, and shall, with intolerable ill usage,
cruelly tyrannize over the whole, or a considerable part of
the people, in this case the people have a right to resist and
defend themselves from injury . . . .
This reasoning directly contradicts the belief in the absolute
right of kings. Earlier, James I had taken the opposite position
when he wrote in the "Trew Law of Free Monarchies":
"although I have said a good king will frame all his actions
to be according to the law, yet is he not bound thereto but of
his good will." However, as a title page of one of John Milton's
works shown below clearly illustrates, generations of English
writers, politicians, and leaders had voiced the belief that there
was a natural limit to the authority of kings.
 |
The
Tenure of
Kings
AND
Magistrates
Proving
that it is lawful, and has been
held so through all ages, for any,
who have the Power, to call to account a
tyrant, or wicked king, and after
due conviction, to depose, and put
him to death; if the ordinary
magistrate has neglected, or
denied to do it.
And that they, who of late so much blame deposing, are
the men that did it themselves. |
(A
version with notes is available at the Milton
Reading Room Little wonder that American supporters of liberties
referred so often to Milton in their writing!
The works of Locke, Sidney, and other proponents of natural law
were familiar to many of the founders. In fact, James Otis, John
Hancock, Samuel Adams, Joseph Warren, John Adams and other revolutionaries
who attended Harvard College would have studied the work of Locke
and J.J.
Burlamaqui's 1748, The Principles of Natural Law as part of
the required curriculum. In addition, many of the founders would
have been familiar with John Trenchard's and Thomas Gordon's:
"Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important
Subjects" most often referred to as "Cato's
Letters." Certainly, the frequency with which patriot
writers referred to natural rights philosophies and philosophers
suggested that these ideas shaped the way the founders thought
about the world. (Anyone who doubts that natural rights thinkers
had an effect on American thinking may find it intersting to see
this example from one
reader who thinks Jefferson was a little too indebted to Locke.)
We know from the records that survive of town meetings and other
gatherings in the 1770s that the principles of natural law were
widely understood and accepted. So how did "ordinary"
Americans who did not have the benefit of advanced education become
familiar with this Enlightenment political philosophy? Interestingly,
they may have first become acquainted with these principles as
they listened to sermons in their churches that warned of the
threat to religious liberty represented by too powerful legislatures
and kings. Underlying the series of conflicts and agreements that
had gradually expanded English rights beginning with the Magna
Carta was a serious debate over religious rights. Thus, it is
not surprising that ministers played a role in the discussion
of natural rights theory.
The pastor of Boston's West Church, Jonathan Mayhew, for example,
preached a sermon in 1750 entitled “A
Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to
the Higher Powers (or see the "Discourse"
at the Founders Library) in which he proclaimed:
if the end of all civil government, be the good of society
. . . and if the motive and argument for submission to government,
be taken from the apparent usefulness of civil authority; it
follows, that when no such good end can be answered by submission,
there remains no argument or motive to enforce it.. . . And
therefore, in such cases, a regard to the public welfare, ought
to make us withhold from our rulers, that obedience and subjection
which it would, otherwise, be our duty to render to them.
Another example of this kind of argument can be found in Samuel
West's 1776 sermon, “On the Right to Rebel against Governors."
(For a fuller discussion of the role played by religious leaders
in the revolution, see "Religion
and the Founding of the American Republic: III. Religion and the
American Revolution.")
When you encounter the names of those who played a major role
in the development of natural law theory, you can be sure that
the text is building an argument based on those principles. Hugo
Grotius (1583-1645) is sometimes described as the founder
of the modern theory of natural law; another major contributor
to the development of modern natural law concepts is Samuel
von Pufendorf (1632-1694). Over the course of the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries, natural law theory gained respect among
Englightenment thinkers and was often used to defend religious
freedom in England as well as American civic and religious liberties.
When we try to understand the role of natural law philosophy in
the debate between England and America in the revolutionary era,
it is probably most useful to consider the theories of Algernon
Sidney,
J.J. Burlamaqui, Thomas Hobbes,
and especially John
Locke.
If you see any of the following references or terms in a text
from the revolutionary era, consider whether the author is using
this argument: natural law, law of nature, nature's law, reason,
rational, sense or common sense, Grotius, John Locke, Algernon
Sidney.
Proponents of natural law often use the following words when characterizing
the opposition: bias, prejudice, unreasonable, superstition.
Divine Law Guarantees
All Human Beings Fundamental Rights
Although some seventeenth and eighteenth century continued to
believe in the older idea of "the divine right of kings,"
supporters of natural law believed that according to "Divine
Law" power rested in the hands of the people rather than
their monarchs. Since Enlightenment thinkers believed in a God
who was the embodiment of reason and goodness, they assumed that
as the "author of nature" he created an order designed
to promote the welfare of his creatures. Locke writes in chapter
five of his Second Treatise:
Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us, that men,
being
once born, have a right to their preservation, and consequently
to meat and drink, and such other things as nature affords for
their subsistence: or
revelation, which gives us an account of those grants God made
of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his sons, it is very
clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given
the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common.
God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given
them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life,
and
convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to
men for the
support and comfort of their being.
In other words, both reason and Biblical revelation makes it
clear that God has given people the gift of life, the reason to
make use of it, and the right to enjoy their possession of the
earth. When a ruling power usurps these rights, human beings have
not only the right but perhaps even the responsibility to refuse
to submit to his/her/its authority. The
committee appointed to design Ameica's first Great Seal --
Franklin, Jefferson, and Adams -- seem to have shared that way
of thinking. They proposed that the seal should bear the motto:
"Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God."
For further discussion of the role played in the revolution by
religion and religious leaders , see "Religion
and the Founding of the American Republic: III. Religion and the
American Revolution," which is part of an excellent exhibition
at the Library of Congress web site.
If you see any of the following references or terms in a text
from the revolutionary era, consider whether the author is using
this argument: God, divine, divine rights, revelation, Bible,
author of nature, God of nature, nature's God.
Parents Have a Natural
Authority Over their Children, but England Has Not Behaved as
a "Natural" Parent
Understanding the principles of natural law theory can help us
to understand the significance of a metaphor that comes up repeatedly
in revolutionary rhetoric: the image of a mother who has neglected
or abused her child. Proponents of natural law agreed that some
forms of authority were inherently natural, and the most frequently
cited example is the "natural" power that a parent exercises
over a child. Many British and Americans would have been familar
with this concept not only through the works of Englightenment
thinkers but also because it was one of the central tenets of
the Puritan belief.
The same metaphor had also been used for generations of monarchists
to defend the absolute authority of the king, for, as James I
put it in a 1610 speech to parliament, "Kings are also compared
to fathers of families: for a king is truly parens patriae
[parent of the country], the politic father of his people."
James, recognized then and now as a strong defender of the rights
of kings, developed the family metaphor at greater length in his
"Trew
Laws of Free Monarchies" when he wrote:
By the Law of Nature the King becomes a naturall Father to
all his Lieges at his Coronation: And as the Father of his fatherly
duty is bound to care for the nourishing, education, and vertuous
gouernment of his children; euen so is the king bound to care
for all his subiects. As all the toile and paine that the father
can take for his children, will be thought light and well bestowed
by him, so that the effect thereof redound to their profite
and weale; so ought the Prince to doe towards his people. As
the kindly father ought to foresee all inconuenients and dangers
that may arise towards his children, and though with the hazard
of his owne person presse to preuent the same; so ought the
King towards his people. As the fathers wrath and correction
vpon any of his children that offendeth, ought to be by a fatherly
chastisement seasoned with pitie, as long as there is any hope
of amendment in them; so ought the King towards any of his Lieges
that offend in that measure. And shortly, as the Fathers chiefe
ioy ought to be in procuring his childrens welfare, reioycing
at their weale, sorrowing and pitying at their euill, to hazard
for their safetie, trauellfor their rest, wake for their sleepe;
and in a word, to thinke that his earthly felicitie and life
standeth and liueth more in them, nor in himselfe; so ought
a good Prince thinke of his people.
As to the other branch of this mutuall and reciprock band,
is the duety and alleageance that the Lieges owe to their King:
the ground whereof, I take out of the words of Samuel, cited
by Gods Spirit, when God had giuen him commandement to heare
the peoples voice in choosing and annointing them a King.
This very familiar concept was put into use by the English and
by loyalist Americans to defend the right of the mother-country
to demand obedience from its "child." Those on the other
side of the debate used the same metaphor to suggest that if England
was the mother country, then it had behaved in an unnatural fashion
and the child needed to be protected from it's savagery. In "Common
Sense," Tom Paine directly addresses the issue:
But Britain is the parent country, say some. Then the more
shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young,
nor savages make war upon their families; wherefore the assertion,
if true, turns to her reproach; but it happens not to be true,
or only partly so, and the phrase parent or mother country hath
been jesuitically adopted by the king and his parasites, with
a low papistical design of gaining an unfair bias on the credulous
weakness of our minds. Europe, and not England, is the parent
country of America. This new world hath been the asylum for
the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every
part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces
of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is
so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the
first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.
This argument would not have made any difference
to an earlier believer in the absolute right of Kings such as
James I, who insisted:
I pray you what duetie his children owe to [their
king/father], & whether vpon any pretext whatsoeuer, it
wil not be thought monstrous and vnnaturall to his sons, to
rise vp against him, to control him at their appetite, and when
they thinke good to sley him, or cut him off, and adopt to themselues
any other they please in his roome: Or can any presence of wickednes
or rigor on his part be a iust excuse for his children to put
hand into him? And although wee see by the course of nature,
that loue vseth to descend more then to ascend, in case it were
trew, that the father hated and wronged the children neuer so
much, will any man, endued with the least sponke of reason,
thinke it lawfull for them to meet him with the line? Yea, suppose
the father were furiously following his sonnes with a drawen
sword, is it lawfull for them to turne and strike againe, or
make any resistance but by flight? I thinke surely, if there
were no more but the example of bruit beasts & unreasonable
creatures, it may serue well enough to qualifie and proue this
my argument. We reade often the pietie that the Storkes haue
to their olde and decayed parents: And generally wee know, that
there are many sorts of beasts and fowles, that with violence
and many bloody strokes will beat and banish their yong ones
from them, how soone they perceive them to be able to fend themselves;
but wee neuer read or heard of any resistance on their part,
except among the vipers; which prooues such persons, as ought
to be reasonable creatures, and yet unnaturally follow this
example, to be endued with their viperous nature.
But times and conditions had changed, and of course Paine and
his fellow patriots are on a different side of the argument, so
that they go on to turn the parent-child metaphor against the
English, arguing that "savage" or "unnatural"
behavior of Britain towards America obliges American parents to
protect the lives and futures of their own children by eliminating
the source of the danger. Thus Paine argues:
The authority of Great-Britain over this continent, is a form
of government, which sooner or later must have an end: And a
serious mind can draw no true pleasure by looking forward, under
the painful and positive conviction, that what he calls "the
present constitution" is merely temporary. As parents,
we can have no joy, knowing that this government is not sufficiently
lasting to ensure any thing which we may bequeath to posterity:
And by a plain method of argument, as we are running the next
generation into debt, we ought to do the work of it, otherwise
we use them meanly and pitifully. In order to discover the line
of our duty rightly, we should take our children in our hand,
and fix our station a few years farther into life; that eminence
will present a prospect, which a few present fears and prejudices
conceal from our sight.
He presents a similar case in "The
Crisis," where he writes:
I once felt all that kind of anger, which a man ought to feel,
against the mean principles that are held by the Tories: a noted
one, who kept a tavern at Amboy, was standing at his door, with
as pretty a child in his hand, about eight or nine years old,
as I ever saw, and after speaking his mind as freely as he thought
was prudent, finished with this unfatherly expression, "Well!
give me peace in my day." Not a man lives on the continent
but fully believes that a separation must some time or other
finally take place, and a generous parent should have said,
"If there must be trouble, let it be in my day, that my
child may have peace;" and this single reflection, well
applied, is sufficient to awaken every man to duty. Not a place
upon earth might be so happy as America. Her situation is remote
from all the wrangling world, and she has nothing to do but
to trade with them. A man can distinguish himself between temper
and principle, and I am as confident, as I am that God governs
the world, that America will never be happy till she gets clear
of foreign dominion. Wars, without ceasing, will break out till
that period arrives, and the continent must in the end be conqueror;
for though the flame of liberty may sometimes cease to shine,
the coal can never expire.
The duty of parents to protect and care for their children forms
the basis for particularly powerful -- and emotional -- arguments
when writers call upon mothers and fathers (and husbands and wives)
to mourn the children and spouses who have been slain by the British.
Consider the force of Paine's appeal to peace-minded Americans
when he cries out in "Common Sense":
But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then
I ask, Hath your house been burnt? Hath you property been destroyed
before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a
bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or
a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched
survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those
who have. But if you have, and can still shake hands with the
murderers, then are you unworthy the name of husband, father,
friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in
life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant.
Understandably, this kind of appeal to the sentiments and responsibilities
of parents and family members is a particularly strong feature
of speeches and writing commemorating events such as the Boston
Massacre.
If you see any of the following references or terms in a text
from the revolutionary era, consider whether the author is using
this argument: mother, mother country, parent, child, unnatural,
savage, brutes, brutish.
The Model of Ancient
Republics and of English Constitutional Government Show that Freemen
Should Not Submit to Slavery
Often when a writer or speaker wanted to use an argument based
in republican principles, he would quote Cicero, cite an example
from Roman history, or make some other reference to the classical
world. In the ancient republics, and particularly Rome, the English
found a model of society that celebrated the importance of the
individual of good character who fully contributed to the development
of the civic community. And classical literature, a fundamental
part of the reading of all educated Europeans and Americans in
that period, did more than just provide a way of thinking about
the importance of republican values. As Gordon Woods suggests
in his chapter on "The Republicanization of Monarchy"
in his classic work, The Radicalism of the American Revolution:
"Classical Republican Rome . . . became the means by which
enlightened eighteenth-century Englishmen could distance themselves
from their own society and achieve the perspective from which
to criticize it." (p101) Many Americans, of course, found
that distance and distinctive treatment provided another kind
of perspective that prompted critical thoughts. However, in their
case classical authors and examples provided a means of voicing
their criticism in terms that others might regard as socially
acceptable or more difficult to ridicule.
The eighteenth-century interest in Enlightenment ideals brought
with it a renewed interest in the literature, politics, philosophies,
and morals of the classical world, particularly as they were
expressed in Rome. As Gordon Wood explains in "The Radicalism
of the American Revolution:
In 1765, John Adams wrote in "A Dissertation on Canon and
Feudal Law":
Have not some generals from England treated us like servants,
nay, more like slaves than like Britons? Have we not been under
the most ignominious contribution, the most abject submission,
the most supercilious insults, of some custom-house officers?
Have we not been trifled with, brow-beaten, and trampled on,
by former governors, in a manner which no king of England since
James the Second has dared to indulge towards his subjects?
It was common for writers and speakers to warn their audiences
of the threat of slavery posed by England, and it may have been
even more common to celebrate American freedom in illustrations
by including an image of the "liberty cap" on top of
a rod. In ancient Rome, a formal ceremony was held when a slave
was to be given freedom. Part of the ritual involved granting
"freedom by the rod," which involved the master or official
tapping the slave with a long pole, sometimes topped by the "liberty
cap" which was to be worn by the freed man when attending
the funeral of his former master. For more information on this
subject, see :The
Cultural Significance of Roman Manumission, by Bonnie Palmer.
Classical influences are evident in the work of American artists
and architects. (See, for example, a brief abstract entitled,
"Benjamin
West and the Use of Antiquity")
Colonists
are Entitled to Charter Rights Given to Forefathers
During the period in which America was first settled by English
colonists, it was customary for each corporation or group of people
intending to take possession of particular lands to seek a charter
from the king. Colonial
charters typically included both specifically defined land
grants and sets of rules under which the colony would operate.
In recognition of the fact that distance made it impossible for
the king or parliament to rule the colonies directly, most charters
specified the responsibilities and privileges of specific officers
who would be appointed by the crown while also providing the colonists
with some freedom to set up civic structures and rules suited
to their situation as long as those systems were not in conflict
with English law. In practice, this led some colonies to develop
practices such as conducting town meetings and holding elections
for a wide variety of officials. The 1629
charter of the Massachusetts Bay Colony signed by Charles
I, for example, made it possible for its people to develop the
habits of a democratic society. Henry William Elson noted in his
History
of the United States of America (1910),
This charter was very similar to the third charter of Virginia
of 1612. But there was one remarkable point of difference; it
did not provide, as did the Virginia charter, that the seat
of government must remain in England. This omission led to the
most important results in the building of New England.The experience
of democracy based on direct representation undoubtedly made
Americans impatietn with the more indirect mode of representation
by which the members of Parliament claimed to "represent"
Americans even though colonists had no opportunity to vote in
Parliamentary elections.
This situation was further inflamed in 1774 when Parliament responded
to the Boston Tea Party by passing the set of regulations known
as or "The
Coercive Acts" in Britain and labeled "The
Intolerable Acts" in America. Some elements of these
acts directly rescinded rights that had previously been articulated
in colonial charters. For example, the original charter of Massachusetts
had already been revised (and limited) several times before
the Massachussetts
Government Act further restricted the terms of its charter
by increasing the British government's power over the colonial
governor while also increasing the governor's power over the colonists.
The same act took away the charter-guaranteed right of freemen
to elect many of their local officials.
If you see any of the following references or terms in a text
from the revolutionary era, consider whether the author is using
this argument: charter, compact, contract, ancient, forefathers,
ancestors.
"Forefathers"
Earned Freedom for All Americans
Although it would seem to contradict both the claim that Americans
are Englishmen, and that the rights of the colonists were founded
on government charters, American patriots often argued that their
"forefathers" had left England in order to find freedom
in a new world.. All Americans are thus entitled to liberty because
their ancestors had braved the challenges involved in taming the
wilderness.
This argument can be found in many of the documents of the revolutionary
era, but it was also given a different kind of expression in the
celebration of Forefather's
Day. Once a small private celebration held by a small group
of friends to commemorate the landing of their own ancestors at
Plymouth, Forefather's Day was transformed into a major holiday
in Massachusetts with a serious political message in the years
before the revolution. Not surprisingly, as the split with Britain
grew closer, the speeches delivered on Forefather's Day placed
a strong emphasis on the idea that the Puritan settlers had sought
and earned freedom in this new land. (See "Tradition
as a Cultural Tool" at the University of Virginia's Crossroad
Project for a good discussion of how "forefathers,"
Forefathers' Day, and the idea of charters were used to promote
revolutionary ideas in the late eighteenth century.)
The idea that the first settler were given charter rights is
often combined with the argument that they earned independence
from England. Jamees Lowell, in "An Oration Delivered April
2d, 1771: At the Request of the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston;
To Commemorate the Bloody Tragedy of the FIfty of March, 1770"
(the Boston Massacre), explains:
. . . our English Ancestors disgusted in their native
country at a Legislation, which they saw was sacrificing
all their rights, left its Jurisdiction and sought,
like wandering birds of passage, some happier climate. Here
at length they settled down. The King of England was
said to be the royal landlord of this territory; with Him they
entered into mutual sacred compact, by which the price of tenure
and the rules of management were fairly stated. It
is in this compact that we find OUR ONLY TRUE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY.
The use of italics and capital letters to emphasize certain key
terms leads us to question whether Lowell is emphasizing the English
inheritance of the settlers, or the fact that it was only this
original general that was English and that the king merely had
dominion over England. Perhaps it is both. Like most revolutionary-era
rhetoricians, Lowell seems willing to combine arguments even when
they seem to contradict one another, so that he insists throughout
the speech both that Americans are English and entitled to all
the guarantees of the British constitution and that Americans
are a separate people whose freedom was one by their ancestors.
If you see any of the following references or terms in a text
from the revolutionary era, consider whether the author is using
this argument:
forefathers, ancestors, settlers, Puritan, brave,
wilderness.
America
is Entitled to Rights and Respect Because
It Is Destined to Be Mighty
Even in the eighteenth century it was clear that the size of America
and the scale of its resources suggested that it was likely to develop
a large population, a prosperous economy, and perhaps even political
power. Therefore, many of those seeking greater independence from
England argued that the "mother country" should be courting
Americans rather than restricting them. Some writers, in fact, went
so far as to suggest that some day the capital of England would
be relocated from London to some more important city in America.
Edmund Burke, a member of Parliament who supported the colonists
in their pleas, argued in his Speech
on Conciliation with America, (March 22, 1775):
our ancestors have turned a savage wilderness into
a glorious empire, and have made the most extensive and the only
honorable conquests, not by destroying, but by promoting the wealth,
the number, the happiness of the human race. . . . English privileges
have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make
it all it can be.
Even Adam Smith, who believed that Americans were wrong to protest
the taxes and other measures that required them to contribute
to the support of England, admitted:
