ABSTRACT
The Whig Ideology’s Influence on American Politics
Michelle Nam
Director: Dr. Thomas Kidd
As America’s political conscience was forming during the eighteenth century,
British political ideas were very influential, especially the Whig Party’s ideology. Whig
ideology, shown through the writings of John Locke, John Trenchard and Thomas
Gordon, and important Whig Party members such as William Atwood, Robert Ferguson,
and Henry Hallam, defended ideas such as virtue, sovereignty in the people, and
separation of power. The principles inspiring the Revolution reflected the Whig
ideology, as did important founding documents written during and after the American
Revolution. Whig ideology demonstrates that British political thought remained central
to the creation of America’s national identity.
APPROVED BY DIRECTOR OF HONORS THESIS:
______________________________________________________________
Dr. Thomas Kidd, Department of History
APPROVED BY THE HONORS PROGRAM:
_______________________________________________
Dr. Andrew Wisely, Director
DATE: ______________
THE WHIG IDEOLOGY’S INFLUENCE ON AMERICAN POLITICS
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of
Baylor University
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Honors Program
By
Michelle Nam
Waco, Texas
May 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements
iv
Dedication
v
Chapter One: The Origins of Whig Thought in Great Britain
Introduction
1
The Whig Party
2
Whig Ideology
10
Conclusion
22
Chapter Two: The Whig Party’s Influences on American Politics—1700-1774
Introduction
24
English Constitution
25
Reactionary Politics
31
Conclusion
43
Chapter Three: The Whig Party’s Influences on American Politics—1775-1783
Introduction
46
Whig Party Support
47
A Call into Action
54
Conclusion
67
Chapter Four: The Whig Party’s Influences on American Politics—1783-1787
Introduction
70
American Constitutional Development
71
Founding Fathers
82
ii Conclusion
89
Conclusion of Thesis
92
Bibliography
95
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank first and foremost, Dr. Thomas Kidd for mentoring throughout my
research and writing for this project. It was a privilege to learn from him in the
classroom and out and it was a true honor working with him. I would also like to thank
my history teachers, Mr. Naftaly and Ms. Roberts for helping me find my passion for
history in their high school classrooms and teaching me the valuable lesson of learning
for the sake of learning. I hope to follow in their footsteps and do the same for my future
students. I am extremely grateful for my family, whom without them I would not be at
this point of my academic career. My dad, mom, and sister’s love and support has helped
me greatly in allowing me to be able to write a thesis at such a fostering and
accommodating university. Thank you so much to my support system both in Texas and
Nevada. David, Perpetual, Joana, Mary, Victoria, Grace, Roxanna, Jackie, Deidre, and
Pastor Brian have all helped me in some manner in the writing of this thesis. Your
enthusiasm and encouragements are what got me finish this thesis. Lastly, a big thank
you to all the Baylor University professors and faculty that have helped me: Dr.
Hamilton, Dr. Sweet, Dr. Hall, Ms. Bentsen, Ms. Haun, Dr. Beck, and Dr. Wisely.
iv DEDICATION
To David, your love and friendship over the years have taught me to always persevere,
even in the most trying circumstances
v CHAPTER ONE
The Origins of Whig Thought in Great Britain
Introduction
Since the birth of the Whig Party, Whig ideology has contributed a lot to
America’s political discourse. The idea of having rights protected under a contract
formed between the government and the governed was a central idea of Whig ideology
and this idea has been the source of inspiration in forming this more democratic form of
governance. It was believed by the Whigs that this was the best solution in keeping the
government in check from tyranny while at the same time providing the protection that a
government provides for the people. This central idea was the center of discussion of
how property, the English Constitution, and virtue all had played a part in this understood
contract between the government and the governed. The combination of these ideas
culminated into what is considered as Whig ideology. Many important politicians have
helped form Whig ideology by their contribution of their own ideas. Some of the most
noted Whigs that contributed much to the formation of Whig ideology were John Locke,
John Trenchard, Thomas Gordon, William Atwood, Robert Ferguson, and Henry Hallam.
Locke, Trenchard, and Gordon were recognized for the significant writings of the
Treatises on Government and Cato’s Letters. Both of these sets of writings contributed
greatly to Whig thought and are considered to be significant parts of the development of
Whig ideology and were widely read among American colonists. Atwood, Ferguson, and
Hallam were known for their contributions to Whig thought as well but were more
politically active within the Whig Party than Locke, Trenchard, and Gordon. An analysis
1 of all six of these notable Whig figures helped in understanding what the Whigs stood for
as a party and also gave greater insight on Whig ideology. Whig ideology had inspired
the creation of new government systems, such as America’s government, that would
better cater to the protection of citizens’ rights and their liberties.
The Whig Party
The Whig Party was where most of Whig ideology came from and therefore
important to note. Whig Party members contributed to Whig ideology through political
writings and this helped other philosophers to elaborate on those set principles. The
Whig Party in simple terms was a political party that fought for the preservation of an
older English political system that once ruled England.1 The main belief of the party was
that England’s government was slowly deviating away from what the Whigs believed
was the best political system that should still be governing England. The Whig Party
formed in England just before the Glorious Revolution, the ascendency of William and
Mary to the English throne which occurred in 1688 to 1689.2 The first significant
political event that the Whigs were involved with was the Exclusion Crisis, which was
the attempt at excluding James, Duke of York, from ascending to the throne. The rebels
who were trying to exclude James from the throne were called Whigs, after a term that
was used to call the Scottish rebels of 1679, Whiggamores.3 The loyalists who were
against the exclusion act that was forming were called Tories, which was the name that
1
Caroline Robbins, The Eighteenth-century Commonwealthman: Studies in the Transmission, Development
and Circumstance of English Liberal Thought from the Restoration of Charles II until the War with the
Thirteen Colonies, (New York: Atheneum, 1968), 8.
2
Robbins, The Eighteenth-century Commonwealthman, 3.
3
Roger Lockyer, Tudor and Stuart Britain, (Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited, 2005), 420.
2 was given to evicted Irish Catholic bandits.4 There was an increased anti-Catholic
sentiment rising in England at the time of James’ ascension to the throne and this became
the driving force behind the Exclusion Crisis.5 However, another reason why the Whigs
were against James and the rest of the Stuarts ruling England was because the Whigs
believed that the Stuarts were disrespecting the social contract formed between the king
and the people in the English constitution. There were many proposals that were
suggested in the Whig Party of how to exclude James from the throne. The Whigs
decided that the best way to approach the situation was to completely ban any possible
Catholic heir from the throne. When attempts to prevent James from being named heir to
the throne after Charles II died were unsuccessful, some of the more radical Whigs
decided to take matters into their own hands. Conspiracy plots were formed by these
radicals, who aimed at overthrowing Charles II and forcing him to also exclude his
brother from ascending to the throne. This plot, called the Rye House conspiracy, got
even more extreme at one point with the assassination of Charles II and James being
considered. However, the plot became uncovered and the Whigs participated in the
conspiracy were tried and executed for treason.6 The Exclusion Crisis started a separate
faction of the Whig Party that was named informally the Whig radicals.7
4
Ibid.
5
Melinda Zook, Radical Whigs and Conspiratorial Politics in Late Stuart England, (University Park, PA:
The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999), xi.
6
Ibid., xii.
7
Ibid., xiii.
3 After the Hanoverians replaced the Stuarts, two distinct parties started to form:
the Whig and the Tory Party.8 The Whig and the Tory Party were basically in opposition
with each other and this gave birth to a two party system in England.9 The Whig Party
stood as the dissidents of the Tory Party, and supported the merchant class and
Parliament.10 Traditionally, the Tory Party’s main cause was for the established church,
landed owners, and monarchy. Having a two party system was not the desire of any
British politicians; however, because there was a clear division in political views, it was
unavoidable. As historian John Brewer has said “on the one hand, the government
maintained that the Whig/Tory distinction was a valid one and proved its own case by
proscribing Tories from government, while on the other, the opposition continued to urge
that any difference between the parties was chimerical.”11 Once the Hanoverians
succeeded the throne after the Stuarts, the Tory Party lost a chance of having a foothold
in politics when the failure of restoring the Stuart reign occurred. The Whig Party was
able to dominate and gain the support of both George I and George II by convincing both
that the Whigs were the only supporters of the Hanover regime.12
When King George III ascended to the throne in 1760, he made it clear that he
wanted to end divided politics. However, this proved to be difficult to implement since
the division between the Tory and the Whig Party were more entrenched during the reign
8
E. A. Smith, Whig Principles and Party Politics: Earl Fitzwilliam and the Whig Party, 1748-1833,
(Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1975), 43.
9
Robbins, The eighteenth-century commonwealthman, 3.
10
Leonard Cowie, Hanoverian England: 1714-1837, (London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd, 1967), 60.
11
John Brewer, Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1976), 46.
12
Cowie, Hanoverian England, 60.
4 of George I and George II. George III used many methods in his power such as
propaganda to phase out party politics in England during his reign, but none of his
methods were effective.13 The opposite actually occurred; this campaign against party
politics made the division between the Whig and Tory Party stronger than ever. It was at
this time that the Whig and Tory Party officially formed as political parties in British
politics.14 When it became clear that the Tory Party and their ideology was more
supportive of the institution of monarchy, the Whig Party was concerned that they were
going to be phased out during the reign of George III.15 These concerns were confirmed
when a series of events occurred and each were clearly against Whig principles.16
George III became especially aggressive towards the Whig Party and this made it clear to
the Whigs that they were marginalized by the king. The Whig Party had to face a tough
decision of either joining the Tory Party, despite the fact that their party principles
clashed, or deciding to preserve the party’s political ideology.17 The Whig party chose to
defend their ideals as its own party, but this proved to be a very difficult task to complete.
The leaders in the Whig Party started to create separate factions within the party itself.
These divisions caused the Whig Party to be even more ineffective.
The Whig Party was already disunited at the time of the political disaster of 1762,
King George III’s direct attack on the Whig Party. Many Whig leaders, such as Henry
13
Brewer, Party Ideology and Popular Politics, 47-48.
14
Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Whig and Tory,"
(2012, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/641802/Whig-Party).
15
Brewer, Party Ideology and Popular Politics, 48.
16
Ibid., 49.
17
Ibid., 53, 78.
5 Fiennes Pelham-Clinton, Duke of Newcastle; Charles Richmond; and William Pitt, Earl
of Chatham; believed that the only way that the party could be an effective bulwark
against the Tory Party was to be united once again.18 William Pitt, first Earl of Chatham,
was the unofficial party leader because he was the “oldest Whig in England.”19 The
Duke of Newcastle was also another formidable party member who had great influence in
the Whig Party as well. Even though both Newcastle and Pitt believed that the party
needed to be reunited, they still disagreed with each other certain key political ideas,
which made the task difficult.20 Pitt already had the upper hand and had more political
power and influence than Newcastle, and Pitt used this to his advantage.21 When Pitt
realized that he needed the freedom that his greater political power provided, which
allowed him to lead the party in the direction that he wanted, he no longer supported a
partnership with Newcastle.22 Instead, Pitt tried to unite the party by appealing to the rest
of the Whigs to join his side. Once Pitt used his power over Newcastle, there was not
much that Newcastle could do. In fact, this divided the Newcastle faction even more and
another division formed. The Rockingham Whigs, led by Charles Watson-Wentworth,
broke off with Newcastle as well.23 These divisions within the Whig Party grew more
distinct when both Newcastle and the Rockingham Whigs became favored by the English
18
Ibid., 79.
19
Ibid.
20
Ibid.
21
S. M. Farrell, “Wentworth, Charles Watson-, Second Marquess of Rockingham (1730–1782)”, (Oxford
Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008,
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28878).
22
Ibid.
23
Brewer, Party Ideology and Popular Politics, 80.
6 government over the rest of the Whigs. The more traditional Whigs disliked this because
they disagreed with the new direction in which the party was going. The old Whigs were
supporters of Pitt, while the supporters of Newcastle and Rockingham were being
representative of the new Whigs. 24 This showed how as the Whig Party continued to
divide.
The Newcastle and the Rockingham Whigs separated from each other. Early on,
Newcastle held resentment against Rockingham for gaining leadership simply because he
had closer connections with Pitt.25 Rockingham was a natural leader and appealed to
many people because of his charisma and high moral standards. He shaped his party to
have a consistent adherence to morals.26 The Rockingham Whigs were supportive of
having reconciliation talks between Great Britain and America during the Revolutionary
War. They had a respectable presence in Parliament with sixty Members of Parliament
and an additional thirty party members.27 The numbers of the Rockingham Whigs went
down in the 1770s and only had a small presence in the House of Commons and the
House of Lords. It was during this period that the Rockingham Whigs worked along with
Chatham, even though Chatham’s more radical views did not make this alliance easy.28
Another significant Whig, who also led another faction of the Party, was Charles
James Fox. Fox and his views were similar with Whig ideology, and he adapted the
24
Ibid.
25
Farrell, “Wentworth, Charles Watson-”, (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28878).
26
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid.
7 Party’s ideology as his own.29 He started out by joining the Rockingham Whigs. Fox
believed the Whig view that George III was undermining the parliamentary government
in order to give himself more absolute power.30 A great influence on Fox and his
Whiggish leanings was his association with Edmund Burke, another Whig Member of
Parliament. Burke worked as a private secretary to Rockingham while he was Prime
Minister and supported the Rockingham Whigs’ ideology even when Pitt replaced
Rockingham as Prime Minister.31 It was Burke who personally sought Fox out and
mentored him.32 Fox gained his own supporters and they also broke off into their own
faction when Pitt gained supreme control over the Whig Party. 33 Fox’s greatest
contribution to the formation of Whig ideology was the political writings that he wrote
after he had broken off from the rest of the Whig Party. He wrote about the history of the
Whig Party and was a Whig historian. His writings showed his own views on the English
Constitution, which was central to Whig ideology.34
The Whig Party not only had many factions within, there was a clear division
between the old Whigs and the new Whigs. The new Whigs started to gain a stronger
foothold within the party after the party divided into two.35 However, once again, the
29
L. G. Mitchell, “Fox, Charles James (1749–1806)”, (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press, 2004; online edn, Oct 2007 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10024).
30
Ibid.
31
Paul Langford, “Burke, Edmund (1729/30–1797)”, (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press, 2004; online edn, Sept 2012 http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4019).
32
L. G. Mitchell, “Fox, Charles James”, (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10024).
33
J. R. Dinwiddy, "Charles James Fox as Historian." [Historical Journal 12, no. 1 (March 1969): 2334. Historical Abstracts, EBSCOhost].
34
Ibid.
35
Brewer, Party Ideology and Popular Politics, 83.
8 party’s stability came into question by another opportunity to unite against a common
enemy. This threat was Lord Bute, and he entered the political scene when he introduced
a new direction for the Tory Party.36 Lord Bute and his suggested changes for the Tory
Party faced opposition from other Tories and a divide began to form as well within the
Tory Party itself. The growing threat of Lord Bute and his domination of the Tory Party
provided an opportunity for the Whigs and the remaining members of the Tory Party to
unite and to end the two party system that was dominating in England for the entire
Hanoverian regime. All of the Whigs had a great dislike for Lord Bute who posed a big
threat to the Whigs. A coalition within the Whig Party formed by Charles WatsonWentworth, Marquess of Rockingham, to increase the party’s strength and to concentrate
the party’s ideology but this failed in the end.37 The main focus of the Rockingham
Whigs was their opposition to England’s fighting in the Revolutionary War.38 The
divisions between the old and the new Whigs were too deep for this unity within the
Whig Party with the Tory Party.39 The Party continued to be deeply divided until Burke
wrote the Rockingham creed, a deliberate declaration of what the party stood for.40 It
was at this time that the party started to gain its meaning and definition about the writing
36
Ibid., 85.
37
Ibid., 92.
38
Farrell, “Wentworth, Charles Watson-”, (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28878).
39
Brewer, Party Ideology and Popular Politics, 88-89.
40
Ibid., 94.
9 of the Rockingham creed and this eventually led to the domination of the Rockingham
Whigs, who were led by Charles Watson-Wentworth.41
Analyzing the Whig Party helped in understanding where Whig ideology
originated from. The important political leaders of the party showed how influential they
were in not only in British politics, but also in the formation of Whig ideology. It was
through these leaders and their writings that helped form some of the important pillar of
Whig thought. The Whig Party was also important in supporting the colonists in
Parliament. During the early eighteenth century when the patriots started to rebel against
the British government, the Whig Party started to support them and act on their behalf in
Parliament because of their similar political views. This also showed how important the
Whig Party was also to the colonists.
Whig Ideology
While it is important to learn how the Whig Party formed to gain a historical
context which helped better understand why the Whigs stood as their own party, it is also
critical to analyze the party’s ideology. Whig ideology was wide-ranging and varied
since there were many factions within the party. It is hard to determine what the Whig
Party’s platforms were. There were many Whigs that wrote on general political topics
that gave insight into what exactly these politicians believed in. The collection of these
beliefs helped in understanding what the basic tenets of Whig ideology were.
One of the central ideas of Whig ideology was the importance that the Whigs
placed on property. As Leslie Mitchell has noted, “Whig politics rested on the simple
41
Ibid., 95.
10 proposition that property was king.”42 Property was important because Whigs felt that
property should be the indicator of whether or not a person can partake in politics. Whigs
greatly emphasized property because paying taxes was a direct contribution to the
country. This was why Whigs believed that property owners should have a greater
political voice. This also meant that property owners’ opinions should be held at a higher
caliber because of the fact that their property can be directly affected by government
policies. Their opinions mattered more because they were willing to fight for their
property if it ever came under threat.43
With this emphasis on property and the belief that property gave political
responsibility to these owners, it is obvious why Whigs were mainly land-owning
aristocrats. These property owners, also called natural aristocrats, believed that they had
a special responsibility to their country by partaking in government.44 Another aspect of
this idea of the natural aristocrats having a political responsibility in contributing to
government was the fact that any citizen that did not own land could not have the same
political voice. The simple test of whether or not a citizen owned his or her own land
was an indication of how much of a political voice they could have. All citizens had
civic rights, which included things like Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, free press, and a
voice in taxation; however, this did not mean that they had as much of a political voice
that the natural aristocrats did according to Whig ideology.45 The reason why the Whigs
42
Leslie Mitchell, The Whig World: 1760-1837, (New York: Continuum International Publishing Group,
2006), 136.
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid., 137-138.
45
Ibid., 141.
11 believed in this special political role that the natural aristocrats had was because this was
a principle that was taught to the aristocrats. Aristocrats learned at an early age that they
were the key to keep balance in government. “Whigs saw themselves as the guardians
and trustees of political liberty, which defended their great properties from offence, and,
by doing so, made all their compatriots free.”46 This special role that the Whigs saw that
they had in government was centered around their emphasis on the importance of
property.
There were also important political documents that helped shaped Whig ideology.
John Locke, writer of both Treatise on Civil Government and Second Treatise on Civil
Government: An Essay Concerning the True Original, Extent, and End of Civil
Government, was a very significant philosopher and writer and was also a great influence
in the shaping of Whig ideology. In 1690, Locke anonymously had published Treatises
on Government and it became one of the most influential political works that contributed
to the ideas that formed the American Revolution.47 During at least the first five years
following its publication, the Treatises hardly received any recognition. It was not until
1703 that there were critical responses to the documents and until 1705 that any
publication even made an attempt to debate with Locke’s ideas that were presented in the
Treatises.48 This may have been because of fact that Locke indeed published the
Treatises anonymously; however, there is some indication that it may have been because
46
Ibid., 183-139.
47
J. R. Milton, "Locke, John (1632-1704)," (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1688).
48
Martyn P. Thompson, "The Reception of Locke’s Two Treatises on Government, 1690-1705," (Political
Studies 24, no. 2 (June 1976): 184-191, Historical Abstracts), 185.
12 of the fact that Locke did not present any profound new political ideas that were not
already in the discourse at the time of its writing. Among the first people who noticed
Locke’s Treatises were the Whigs. In the year of the Treatises’ publication, a popular
Whig pamphlet titled Political Aphorisms, responded comprehensively to the ideas that
Locke presented. William Atwood, a famous Whig pamphleteer, also quoted and used
some of Locke’s arguments in this own writings as well.49 From the very beginning, the
two Treatises on Government played a large role in forming Whig ideology.
Locke and his philosophy were widely used during the Enlightenment and played
a large part in forming the Whig Party’s own political identity. According to the famous
Enlightenment thinker, David Hume, the Treatises on Government provided the Whigs a
base for their party’s principles.50 Locke’s theory on government systems in England
caused him to be called “the evangelist of Whig doctrine.”51 In Treatises on Civil
Government, Locke speaks with great authority on his views on the role of government
and the rights of individuals. Locke dedicated a large portion of his essay to man’s
natural rights and how they should be protected by their government. He emphasized
that men should all be equal to one another in a civil government because it is the state of
nature that all men were created equal. 52 Locke also provides an answer to why
government could benefit men even though it seems that it would be a sacrifice to some
of their rights. “The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into
commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their
49
Ibid., 185-186.
50
Ibid., 184.
51
Basil Williams, The Whig Supremacy, 1714-1760, (London: Oxford University Press, 1962), 3.
52
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, (Alex Catalogue, n.d. eBook Collection), 21.
13 property.”53 It is in the best interest of all for every citizen to give up some of their
freedoms and the purpose of the government would be to protect their well-being. This
relationship between the government and the governed that Locke portrays in his Second
Treatise on Civil Government formed this mutual understanding and contract between the
government and the governed.
Locke’s Treatises of Government was one of the founding documents of political
liberalism and was really influential on Whig ideology as well. When Locke’s ideas
became popular and widely read, the political ideas that he presented in the Treatises of
Government largely credited to him even though many other political writers held similar
ideas. Radical Whigs were one of those groups of political writers who adopted Locke
and his political ideas. Ronald Hamowy, author of “Cato’s Letters, John Locke, and the
Republican Paradigm,” equated radical Whigs and Locke in having the same political
principles.
“that all men in the state of nature are equal; that the basis of all legitimate
government is the consent of the governed; that all men are possessed of certain
natural, inalienable rights; and that the civil magistrate is bound by the terms of
the original contract by which he holds authority to govern; should he violate this
contract, men have a right to resist him.”54
These ideas outlined in Locke’s Treatises on Government do similarly reflect much of the
principles that represent Whig ideology which made Locke to be one of the most
influential sources for the Whig ideology.
One of the famous Whig writers, who held similar ideas as Locke, was an
aristocratic leader in the Whig Party named Robert Ferguson. Ferguson was a well 53
Ibid.
54
Ronald Hamowy, "Cato’s Letters, John Locke, and the Republican Paradigm," [History of Political
Thought 11, no. 2 (Summer 90 1990): 273-294, Historical Abstracts], 273.
14 known propagandist for radical Whig ideas and was also infamously known for being a
part of the Rye House conspiracy.55 He had many secretive connections with powerful
and high-ranked politicians in the English government at the time. Some of the people
that he served were Thomas Papillon, deputy governor of the East India Company, the
Earl of Shaftesbury, the Earl of Essex, and the Duke of Monmouth.56 Ferguson and his
writings were influential and also had a wide readership, as did Locke and his writings.
Ferguson’s writings, which were mainly propaganda, were “a skillful combination of
Whig political principles, communicated through various tropes and Whig myths, an
assortment of lies and exaggerations that played on popular fears and bigotry.”57 His
political views were seen as indistinguishably similar to Locke’s views.
Another influential source of Whig ideas came from John Trenchard and Thomas
Gordon’s publication of Cato’s Letters in the 1720s. A series of articles, Cato’s Letters
appeared in the London Journal in the fall of 1720 to the summer of 1723. John
Trenchard was a great supporter of the Glorious Revolution and had a wealthy
background. Thomas Gordon was a pamphleteer and journalist, who collaborated earlier
with Trenchard in the Independent Whig. The South Sea crisis that occurred in
September 1720 had inspired Trenchard and Gordon to write Cato’s Letters.58 The South
Sea crisis was when the South Sea Company stock fell drastically and the effect of the
stock’s crashing had huge national implications. This greatly impacted large amounts of
people, in particular the wealthier classes in England. It had also impacted Members of
55
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 22-23.
56
Ibid., 23.
57
Ibid., 94.
58
Ronald Hamowy, "Cato’s Letters, John Locke, and the Republican Paradigm," 278.
15 Parliament and the royal family. The main cause of the South Sea crisis was because of
the speculated corruption that existed within the South Sea Company. There were many
bribes that were dealt between the Company and members of the Commons, Parliament,
and the royal family.59 The South Seas crisis became the starting point of discussion of
Cato’s Letters, which gave rise to the conversation of liberty, tyranny, and morality,
which had led to the formation of these Whig-like political ideas.
Cato’s Letters emphasized a wide range of political ideas such as popular
sovereignty, patriotism, natural liberties, and virtue. All of these ideas are a good
reflection of the common platform of the Whig Party, and Cato’s Letters quickly became
one of the most common sources through which the colonists gained their knowledge
about Whig ideologies. One of the things that Cato’s Letters placed a great emphasis on
was on the threat of having too much power given to one individual. Trenchard and
Gordon stated that there was an indirect correlation between power and virtue. “For the
mean fawning, the servile flatteries, the deceitful correspondences, the base ingratitude to
old benefactors, and the Slavish compliances with new friends, and all the other arts and
treacheries, which are necessary to be put in practice, in order to rise in such courts, or
indeed to become heads of parties even in free governments, make it almost impossible
for a truly great or virtuous man to attain to those stations.”60 Trenchard and Gordon
firmly believed that there were glaring flaws in the political system ruling in Great
Britain and one of these flaws was how a ruler with bad intentions could easily ascend to
the throne. The British monarchy was used as an example in Cato’s Letters in proving
59
Ibid., 279.
60
John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters, (Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund, 1995), 105.
16 that if a monarch abuses his or her power in Great Britain, other branches in the
government could not properly intervene in the situations.61 All the power given to the
monarch posed an obvious danger to the nation and the governed.
Cato’s Letters greatly emphasized virtue and the role it had in government. With
the use of ancient Roman history, Trenchard and Gordon showed through these examples
of how corruption was at one time the only way to gain power and prestige.62 Great
leaders such as Crassus and Caesar had bad intentions when entering power; both were
selfish rulers and thought of their own needs before the needs of the people.63 A
continued line of rulers abused their power, which led a nation into “utter loss of liberty
and a settled tyranny”.64 A look into history left a helpless outlook in the possibility of
creating a government that would prevent leaders from giving into their own selfish
needs. Trenchard and Gordon stated that virtue could be the thing that could stand
against the abuse of power. Great amounts of power and responsibility had caused rulers
to be easily manipulated and the temptation would be too great for anyone to succumb to
what was considered a part of human nature. Trenchard and Gordon believed that only a
truly virtuous person could withstand the temptations that come with power.65
One thing that the Whig ideology emphasized was their desire for the English
constitution to have more of an important role in England’s government system. It is
important to understand what the English constitution was to gain greater insight in
61
Ibid., 108.
62
Ibid., 196.
63
Ibid., 197.
64
Ibid., 201.
65
Ibid., 239-240.
17 comprehending the basis of Whig ideology. There were many disputes on the definition
of a constitution over time. One definition that was being used when America was
forming her own constitution was Thomas Paine’s own understanding of what a
constitution was. According to Thomas Paine, author of the famous pamphlet Common
Sense, a constitution was a physical written document whose words one can abide by.66
A written constitution should contain information on how a government will be organized
in that respective country. Even though Paine was not a Whig and his writings were not
used commonly by Whigs, his commonly accepted definition of a constitution provided
insight into what people thought a constitution was. Paine, like Locke, described the
constitution as a contract between the government and the governed.67 The constitution
was a document that people can hold their leaders accountable to because it was supposed
to act as a contract. According to Paine, the current English government at the time
Common Sense was written no longer had this understood contract between the
government and the governed. There was not a written agreement between the two
parties as the monarchy simply took power and declared sovereignty over the people
without their consent.68 It is because of this departure from mutual respect between the
government and the governed that Paine believed that the hope of having England ruled
by the English Constitution was gone.
A different opinion on the matter of whether or not the English constitution ever
governed England was offered by William Atwood, an esteemed Whig lawyer. He
66
Thomas Paine, Democracy in Britain: A Reader, Ed. Jack Lively, and Adam Lively, (Oxford: Blackwell,
1994), 11.
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid., 12.
18 became a barrister in 1674 at Gray’s Inn, which was where he became acquainted with
another barrister named William Petyt. Petyt told Atwood to become familar with
England’s constitutional history.69 This early exposure to the English Constitution had
caused Atwood to be more supportive of having England to be rule under the English
Constitution. This allowed Atwood to align himself early on with the Whigs, which
eventually led to his membership to the Whig Party.
Atwood and Paine held similar views in that a constitution in its simplest form
should be an agreement with the people and the king; however, he differs with Paine by
stating that a constitution could either be a written document or not. The ancient
unwritten constitution was what Atwood constantly defended and promoted, based on
this idea of a contract. He believed that the king’s power should be given to the king by
the people themselves.70 Atwood also believed that this ancient constitution, that once
governed England, protected and respected citizens’ rights by the government through the
constitution itself.71 However, this stands as the only similarity because Atwood believed
that a constitution did exist in England’s history at one point. It seemed like both Paine
and Atwood viewed a constitution as an agreed upon way of governing between the
monarch and his or her people. The difference between the two definitions was whether
or not a constitution should be a written document. It is important to note the two
opposite opinions on what a constitution was in England at the time of the development
69
Melinda Zook, "Atwood, William (d. 1712)." (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
http://www.oxforddnb.com.ezproxy.baylor.edu/view/article/884?docPos=1).
70
Melinda Zook, Radical Whigs, 68.
71
Ibid.
19 of Whig ideology because the English constitution became the foundational principle of
the Whig ideology itself.
The political views of Henry Hallam, another formidable Whig Party member, is
an example of how this ancient English constitution affected Whig ideology. Hallam had
a background in studying law as a barrister at Oxford University. However, he ventured
into politics when he gained a position at a stamp office, which had got him associated
with Whig politicians. He started to contribute articles to the Whig magazine called the
Edinburgh Review.72 He later formally joined the Whig Party and became a well-known
Whig writer.
Hallam was a prolific and influential Whig writer who believed that England did
once have a constitution and wanted the country to stay closer to the government that
once centered on this constitution. Hallam believed that the constitution entered
England’s history during the thirteenth century with the Magna Carta in 1215. This
provided protection for English citizens against the most egregious violations of their
personal civil rights.73 When the Model Parliament was formed in 1295, this marked the
beginning of a mixed monarchy ruling in England. The role of Parliament provided more
balance between the king, the lords, and the people. In the context of the English
constitution, Hallam’s political views were representative of one of the main ideas of
Whig ideology, which was that a mixed government would be the best at preventing the
abuse of power by one or a group of individuals. A mixed government was theorized to
be the checks on the different branches of government and as a result the government’s
72
Thomas Lang, Hallam, Henry (1777-1859). (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
http://www.oxforddnb.com.ezproxy.baylor.edu/view/article/12002?docPos=2).
73
David Fahey, "Henry Hallam: A Conservative as Whig Historian," [The Historian 28 (1966)], 631.
20 job would be to protect each individual’s freedom. The Whigs saw that this was what a
true republic should be and what they hoped that England would one day be more like.74
Hallam has many similarities with the Tories and their political ideas; however, it
is important to note that his opinion on the matter of whether or not the constitution that
once reigned in English politics was used during the Stuart period was still different than
the Tories.75 Hallam used the history of the English to show how much England had
fallen away from their old ways of ruling. Hallam believed that the constitution was a
contract between the ruler and his people. The very reason that both sides agreed on the
use of the English constitution was because they believed that it could benefit mutually in
forming a government. Rulers previously misunderstood the reason why they were given
the power to rule and forgot that the people gave them the power to rule, which would
mean that the constitution became violated. This misunderstanding was what Hallam
believed happened during the reign of the Stuarts. Charles I even tried to remove
Parliament altogether, of which Hallam greatly disapproved.76 The existence of
Parliament allowed England to have a mixed monarchy and allowed Parliament to be a
check on power upon the monarch. Hallam only accepted continued constitutional
development as long as it was within the framework of a mixed monarchy.77
Even though Hallam’s views seemed that he just wanted to protect the older
government that once ruled England, in reality, he really was promoting a new and
different direction. Hallam did not have the same respect for monarchy and hereditary
74
Guttridge, English Whiggism and the American Revolution, 7-8.
75
Ibid., 638.
76
Ibid., 631.
77
Ibid., 637.
21 succession that the Tories did. He believed that hereditary succession was just a
convenience of not having to find who the next ruler will be. He held the Whig idea that
the reason that monarchs were able to reign was because of the fact that they received
consent from the people.78 At one point in his political career, Hallam proposed that
England should form separate the government into more branches so that the powers of
government would be apart. Hallam wanted to make sure that the government would not
be abusive with the power that they received from the people. He wanted the monarchs
to see their power as a privilege rather than a right.
Conclusion
Whig ideology had inspired America when it was shaping its own political ideals.
It started with British politics originally governing America, which later led to America
in forming her own independent political ideologies that helped create her new
government. It helped with America find inspiration of the formation of new political
ideas. The implementation of Whig ideology, such as fear of an absolute ruler, the
importance of a balanced government, and the need of a mixed government to provide
checks on each branch, was seen throughout the process of America forming their own
government. All of these similarities between British and American politics show how
significant the Whig Party was to the colonists. It was the large influence of the Whig
Party that played an important role in shaping America’s path towards the Revolution and
the creation of a government that would accurately reflect the sentiments that had
inspired the Revolution in the first place.
78
Ibid., 638.
22 The Whig Party and its ideologies stand today as one of the colonists’ greatest
influences in forming their own political government. Much of the party’s ideologies
were similar to the very foundational political ideas that shaped America’s government.
It is hard to ignore the many similarities that can be found in British and American
political ideologies, and not acknowledge the Whig Party’s influence on the development
of America’s own identity.79 By looking through the formation of the Whig Party and its
ideologies, one can prove this. The two Treatises on Government by John Locke and
Cato’s Letters by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon were significant political writings
that greatly contributed to the formation of Whig ideology. Through the writings and
lives of Whig politicians such as William Atwood, Robert Ferguson, and Henry Hallam,
one can find what the Whigs believed in. Comparing the party’s influences and the views
of the Whigs themselves, can help one gain a better general understanding of what Whig
ideology was. In taking this analysis of Whig ideology one step further, the close
similarities American political ideology had with British political ideology proved that
America was still influenced by Britain even as political conflict drove them apart.
79
Pauline Maier, From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American
Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776, (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1991), xx.
23 CHAPTER TWO
The Whig Party’s Influences on American Politics—1700-1774
Introduction
American political thought during the time of the Revolution was a turbulent
period in history. The road that the colonists embarked on that eventually led to the
writing of the Constitution was a long and gradual process towards creating the political
system that still governs America today. Before and during the American Revolution, the
colonists believed that the Revolution was conservative in nature because they believed
that they were preserving the British constitution, which they highly respected. However,
it became more apparent later when the new form of government that the founding
fathers created, that America was actually creating its own political identity separate from
its mother country. The government that was created at the Philadelphia Convention was
a mixed government system that contained many British influences. What originated as
British politics, America started to steer into her own independent political ideologies
that helped formed its new government. Whig ideology was a great influence to the
formation of new political ideas. It was through a combination of Whig ideas such as
fear of an absolute ruler, the importance of a balanced government, and the need of a
government protecting people’s rights that helped start the formation of American
politics. The similarities between American political thought and Whig ideology prove
how influential Whig ideology was. Whig ideology greatly shaped America while it was
on the path towards revolution.
24 English Constitution
It is important to note that the colonies were a small representation of the English
population. While it is true that the American colonies created a new and different
environment for its inhabitants than its mother country, the colonists that immigrated
over to the colonies carried with them many of their British culture and characteristics
with them. The American colonies were different in the manner in which they were
acquired in comparison to other British colonies such as Ireland.80 The colonists were
representatives of their mother country and came over to the Americas to start their own
society on their own free will. As time went on, it became harder for the colonists to live
under the policies that Great Britain was imposing on them. The reason for the rising
difficulties was because the colonies were starting become different than Great Britain
due to its separation geographically. When the colonies had existed for more than a
century, there were definite variances that started to emerge between the colonies and
Great Britain. When the colonists came into the Americas during the seventeenth century
and throughout the eighteenth century, they held on to older ways of governing.81 Even
though Great Britain had moved from the older ways of governing, America held on to
the seventeenth century ways.82 These different understandings of the how government
should rule caused much political discord which eventually led to the American
80
John Derry, English Politics and the American Revolution. (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1976), 37.
81
Ibid., 25.
82
Ibid., 27.
25 Revolution.83 The central idea that both sides disagreed on was the interpretation and use
of the English Constitution. 84
It is hard to define what exactly the English Constitution is. It is commonly
understood that England has no official written constitution that governs the nation to this
day. However, there was a form of a constitution of sorts that did in fact govern England.
The constitution that ruled before the Glorious Revolution was named at times the
“ancient constitution.”85 This ancient constitution was an unofficial contract between the
governed and the ruler that is based on the premise that the governed allows the ruler to
reign over them as long as the ruler agreed to protect their rights. This ancient
constitution, that once governed England at one time, protected citizens’ rights.86 The
constitution came to be known as the foundational idea for what the constitution was
defined as prior to the Glorious Revolution. Adhering to this unofficial contract between
the people and their ruler was a concept that Whigs and their ideology adopted as well. It
became popularized by John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government, which was
one of the fundamental documents that held up Whig doctrine.87
The Glorious Revolution occurred in England because there was fear of having
another Catholic ruler ascend to the throne after James II. The unexpected birth of James
II’s son meant that his Protestant eldest daughter Mary would no longer be the heir to the
83
Ibid., 38.
84
Ibid., 21.
85
Melinda Zook, Radical Whigs, 68.
86
Ibid.
87
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 21.
26 throne.88 There was no fear of Mary and her sister Anne being a Catholic ruler like their
father James because both were born while Charles II was still reigning. Charles II had a
significant role in Mary and Anne’s education and placed more Protestant beliefs on
them. They were both brought up in an Anglican education because there was great antiCatholic sentiment. James II always had Catholic leanings and Charles wanted to make
sure that the next heir after his brother ascended to the throne would not be Catholic so
that it would placate the nation’s fear of having another Catholic ruler. However, all
these fears came back in 1688, when James’s wife, Mary of Modena, gave birth to a
son.89 This removed Mary and Anne from being next in line for the throne.
There were many plots created in trying to have Mary return as the heir to the
throne and that the Whigs were associated with.90 The first attempt was questioning the
legitimacy of the birth of James’ son. There was skepticism on the birth because Mary of
Modena had many miscarriages and was old in age at the time of the birth.91 However,
there were witnesses that declared that Mary did indeed give birth to the son. When
questioning the legitimacy of the birth was no longer an option, Admiral Herbert, 1st Earl
of Torrington, took action and invited Mary’s husband, William of Orange, to invade
England and save them from the fate of having James’s son rule.92 After some
convincing, William did come with an army of twenty thousand men to invade
88
Roger Lockyer, Tudor and Stuart Britain, 434.
89
Ibid.
90
Ibid., 420.
91
Ibid., 434.
92
Ibid.
27 England.93 Instead of standing up to William and his army, James did not defend himself
and left the throne for William to take.94 After the sudden departure of the king,
Parliament had no choice but to appoint someone to be the next ruler. Parliament invited
William and Mary to take over the throne and both accepted the crown.95 The takeover
of the throne and the relieving of the nation’s fear of Catholicism to reign in England
called the Glorious Revolution.
The reason that the Whigs, who were the leaders of the Exclusion crisis, were in
opposition to James and his son to take the throne was more than a religious issue. The
Whigs saw that James was representative of how the Stuarts were steering further away
from the social contract that formed earlier in England’s unofficial “ancient
constitution.”96 The Whigs and their ideology were closely adhering to the “ancient
constitution” that once beheld England and were trying to preserve it as closely as
possible. The best way that they saw fit was to try and replace the monarchs who were
not respecting the “ancient constitution” with monarchs who were more likely to return to
the older ways of governing that England once had.97
The Glorious Revolution, and the new hope that it brought, viewed as the
beginning of a new constitutional rule to both the English and the colonists alike.
However, it soon became apparent to the colonists that the Glorious Revolution did not
provide the changes that they had wished for. This was the start of the classical age of
93
Ibid., 435-436.
94
Ibid., 436.
95
Ibid., 43-437.
96
Zook, Radical Whigs, xi.
97
Ibid., 68.
28 the constitution, which occurred during most of the eighteenth century.98 The classical
age was a period of peaceful transition that the English society was undergoing while
living under the constitution. The change that the constitution underwent was that the
balance of the power was becoming more unbalanced. 99 During the seventeenth century,
the government that ruled considered to have a united and even distribution of power
among the various branches of government. As the eighteenth century came, the balance
of power started to shift towards the Parliament. With the sudden change in the
monarchs that ruled during the Glorious Revolution, it was the Parliament that started to
gain more control. Parliament not only appointed the next king to rule but they also
wrote the Declaration of Rights that took away some of the king’s most important
powers.100 It could be seen that the power was shifting towards the Parliament, and more
specifically the House of Commons. In some form or fashion, the House of Commons
had power over the other branches of government.101 With the king’s veto power over
the Commons removed and the Commons had control over taxation increased the
Commons’ power and decreased the king’s. The House of Lords did not have enough
power to be a useful check upon the Commons.102 This started to show that there was a
growing unbalance within the governing system of Great Britain at this time.
This change in power upset the balance of the constitution and legitimately
created some concerns. If one branch of the government had too much power that the
98
Zook, Radical Whigs, 8.
99
Ibid.
100
Lockyer, Tudor and Stuart Britain, 438-439.
101
Zook, Radical Whigs, 15.
102
Ibid.
29 others could not be a proper check, then there was a good possibility of one branch ruling
over the rest. This would defeat the whole purpose of having separation of powers, and
this was the fear that the colonists started to have with the eighteenth century view of the
constitution. The colonists believed that the seventeenth century constitution was the
correct and the more effective way to govern. This became the reason why the colonists
took up the cause in defending the older constitution. The Whigs also held similar ideas
with the colonists. Henry Hallam, a well-known Whig writer and Whig Party member,
believed that separation of powers was the best way to assure that the government would
not become tyrannical.103 He believed that this was the solution to have the new
unbalanced shift in power between Parliament and the Crown more in control. This was
attempting to shift the view of government back to the way it used to be with the “ancient
constitution,” the document that Hallam and other Whigs were trying to preserve.
The colonists saw the Glorious Revolution with renewed hope because it seemed
to be a return to the “ancient constitution.” They thought that the previous Stuart
monarchs were bad at upholding the ancient constitution well during their reign. With
William and Mary in power and the fear of having another Catholic ruler relieved, there
was a sense that this would be a turn of events and the beginning of England’s
“constitutional recovery.”104 However, this proved not to be the case when William was
not the best at returning England to constitutional rule.105 As mentioned before, most of
the American colonists viewed the seventeenth century and other aspects of the British
103
Guttridge, English Whiggism and the American Revolution, 638.
104
H. Trevor Colbourn, The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of the
American Revolution, (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1965), 48.
105
Ibid.
30 history as their examples of what they wanted England to be once again. Colonists used
British history as their guide and it became the foundation of their own political
ideologies.106 When William and Mary proved to just as disappointing as the earlier
Stuarts, colonists became more cynical about the future for England. The three main
grievances that they saw England was in violation of were corruption, absolute
monarchy, and the use of the standing army by these monarchs.107 The cause of these
grievances was lack of adherence to the ancient constitution.108 If there was a return to
the political system that used to govern England before the eighteenth century, then
England would not have these issues of monarchs and their absolute power in danger of
infringing on the rights of the citizens. To the American colonists, the previous
government system was functional and a return to that government system would solve
all the issues of immorality and the dangers of absolute power that England was facing
during the eighteenth century.
Reactionary Politics
This overarching idea of American colonists constantly defending the old ways of
governing applied to almost any issue that came up in the growing conflict between Great
Britain and the colonies before the Revolutionary War. One of the most important and
main issues of the conflict was the disagreement on representation. At its rudimentary
form, representation is one of the main pillars of democracy. This was the method of
giving citizens a voice in their government and allowed them to have the power to elect
106
Ibid., 185.
107
Ibid., 50.
108
Ibid., 51.
31 the leaders that would reflect their own political views. It was this idea of elected
officials to represent their area to government and to speak on their behalf that is the core
of what representation is.109
The issue of representation came up because of Britain’s attempt at taxing the
colonists in order to fund the Seven Years’ War.110 George Grenville, the Prime Minister
of Great Britain, was faced with the task of finding ways of financially supporting the
war effort. The outcome of the Seven Years’ War was victorious for England and
England expanded their territory, however it came at a great cost.111 The war had left
England in a huge deficit and there was still a need to have armies in the colonies to help
defend them from the Indians. Despite the fact that the war was over, there was still no
peace in the Americas. Pontiac’s Rebellion proved to England that the Indians and their
resistance against their expansion would prove to be an issue not only for their empire but
also for their constituents that were living nearby.112 The French colonists were also not
willing to be amiable towards the English after the war had ended.113 For these two
reasons, Grenville now faced the task of finding enough money to pay off the war debt
and to fund standing armies to stay in the Americas to defend against any possible future
attacks. The solution was to tax the colonists to fund the army that would defend them.114
This was seen as logical and Grenville did not expect it to be unpopular. One issue was
109
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1967), 172.
110
Derry, English Politics and the American Revolution, 52.
111
Ibid., 51.
112
Ibid., 51-52.
113
Ibid., 51.
114
Ibid., 53.
32 the fact that the colonists felt that they did not need a standing army from Great Britain.
The colonists believed that they could defend themselves from any attack, and the
presence of having an army in the colonies made the colonists uncomfortable.115 The
other main issue with the taxes was the lack of representation in Parliament that the
colonists had. This had caused colonists to feel that the taxes that were forced upon them
were not legal because they were not receiving all their rights as citizens. This started the
intellectual debate of what representation was and what type of representation that the
colonists received under the British government.
“No taxation without representation” became the rallying cry of the colonists that were
against the unfair taxes that they were receiving in the form of the Stamp Act of 1765 and
stood as a good depiction of how the colonists viewed their situation.116 This idea of
having proper representation in Parliament was crucial allowing Parliament the right to
tax. Furthermore, the colonists firmly believed that their view on representation mirrored
with the English Constitution.117 In response to the colonists’ argument, England stated
that the colonists did have representation in Parliament, which was termed as “virtual
representation.”118 Virtual does properly describe the representation that the colonists
were receiving because it turned out that the colonists did not in fact have true
representation and the phrase “virtual representation” was used to cover up this fact.119
“Virtual representation” defined as having one Member of Parliament to represent the
115
Ibid.
116
John Miller, Origins of the American Revolution, (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1943), 220.
117
Ibid.
118
Ibid., 212.
119
Ibid., 212-213.
33 interests of the commonwealth as a whole instead of individuals. Therefore, the
enfranchised and the disenfranchised collectively represented by Parliament, no matter
what their citizenship status was. This meant that the colonists as a whole characterized
as the disenfranchised, and that Parliament was not representing the each colonist
directly.120
Considering the colonists and their desire to adhere to the English Constitution
and to simply preserve the way things were before, the colonists had legitimacy in their
arguments. Their argument was rooted with British history and a government that
governed this way for over three generations.121 This more direct form of representation
that the colonists were used to under the English constitution and they tried to preserve
what was considered as a more direct form of representation. As Bernard Bailyn has
written:
“Attendance at Parliament of representatives of the commons was for the most
part an obligation unwillingly performed, and local communities bound their
representatives to local interests in every way possible: by requiring local
residency or the ownership of local property as a qualification for election, by
closely controlling the payment of wages for official services performed, by
instructing representatives minutely as to their powers and the limits of
permissible concessions, and by making them strictly accountable for all actions
taken in the name of the constituents.”122
This form of representation used in England during the fifteenth and sixteenth century,
and it was what the colonists used to call for their voice in Parliament.
Representation started to change as the Parliament’s role in England changed
around the time of the Glorious Revolution. Slowly, Parliament was becoming a more
120
Ibid., 213.
121
Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 162.
122
Ibid., 162-163.
34 virtual representative of the people. The reason behind this change in the role of
Parliament was due to the fact that Parliament started to view themselves as a more
holistic body that would be speaking on the behalf of all England and her constituents.
Bernard Bailyn stated that “Parliament is a deliberative assemble of one nation, with one
interest, that of the whole, where, not local purposes, not local prejudices ought to guide,
but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole.”123 While the
intentions behind these changes to Parliament were good, that still did not hide the fact
that England’s constituents were receiving less of a voice in government. Another reason
behind great disparity of representation that was occurring to the colonies during the
eighteenth century was the fact that the colonies were growing fast.124 The increase of
population in the colonies caused another issue for the colonial governments to make sure
that their citizens were properly represented. Despite the fact that England was known in
having unfair representation in its history, the colonists were still used to being governed
in a more direct fashion.125 This is due to the fact that the colonists were once British
citizens and did receive more representation while they lived in England. Despite the fact
that the colonists were no longer physically present in England, they felt that they still
deserved the same kind of representation. For this reason, the colonists still continued in
fighting for a fairer government system to rule in the Americas.
In response to the Stamp Act of 1765, many of the colonial governments
responded by releasing their own resolves. The most famous one was the Virginia
123
Ibid., 163.
124
Gordon Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, (New York: Vintage Books, 1991), 128.
125
Ibid., 129.
35 Resolves, which was written by Patrick Henry in May 1765.126 This public declaration
stated that the Stamp Act was unconstitutional and was used as propaganda, which led to
eight other colonies following Virginia’s example. These colonial resolves stated that
since the colonies governed by their own separate governments, the only entities that are
allowed to tax the colonies were these colonial governments. Patrick Henry stated in the
Virginia Resolves
“Resolved therefore, that the general assembly of the colony, together with his
majesty or his substitute have in their representative capacity the only exclusive
right and power to levy taxes and impositions on the inhabitants of this colony
and that every attempt to vest such a power in any person or persons whatsoever
other than the general assembly aforesaid is illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust,
and as a manifest tendency to destroy British, as well as American freedom.”127
These documents stood as an example of the reaction of the colonies to England and
show the beginnings of the intellectual debates.
Throughout the conflict that was arising between the colonists and Parliament, the
Whig faction of Parliament was in support of talks of reconciliation. The Rockingham
Whigs, Chathamites, and the Grenvilles grouped as the opposition and the minority of
Parliament and each named and led by their respective leaders.128 Called the Opposition,
they were supportive of the petitions for reconciliation. The Rockingham Whigs were in
support of forming their own petitions to the rest of Parliament to help them see that
peace talks were the best way to end the conflict.129 Charles Watson-Wentworth, the
126
Patrick Henry, "Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act, 1765 May 30."
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/vir_res1765.htm (accessed November 15, 2012).
127
Ibid.
128
Bernard Donoughue, British Politics and the American Revolution, (New York : St. Martin's Press,
1964), 6.
129
James Bradley, Popular Politics and the American Revolution in England: Petitions, the Crown, and
Public Opinion, (Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1986), 23.
36 leader of the Rockingham Whigs and the 2nd Marquess of Rockingham, successfully
repealed the Stamp Act.130 The reasons behind the repeal were for different reasons than
what the colonists believed. The British repealed the Stamp Act because they believed
that the timing was wrong, however very few agreed with the colonists that the Stamp
Act violated the constitution. Despite the differences in opinion, the colonists were
content that the Stamp Act was repealed.
Despite the fact that the colonists did get the Stamp Act repealed, the conflict did
not end there. The Townshend Acts were the next set of acts that the colonists were
against because they saw it as a violation of their constitutional rights. The Townshend
Acts were issued as another solution to raise revenue through the colonies. The acts
proposed by Charles Townshend, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and passed by Parliament
in 1767.131 After the Stamp Act got repealed, England still faced the problem of finding
funds to defend and to manage the American colonies.132 The solution that Parliament
came up with was the issuance of the Townshend Acts and this was the second time that
taxes were imposed solely for the purpose of raising revenue. It was the Townshend
duties in particular that was in violation of illegally imposing taxes on the colonies due to
the fact that its sole purpose was to directly fund the British treasury through taxes being
placed on goods such as lead, paper, paint, and tea.133 Townshend and the majority of
Parliament believed that it was in their right to be able to tax the colonists unless the
130
Donoughue, British Politics and the American Revolution, 4.
131
Miller, Origins of the American Revolution, 240, 250.
132
Ibid., 242.
133
Wood, The American Revolution, 31.
37 colonists preferred living independently from Great Britain.134 As a part of the British
Empire, they were within the realm of possibilities of being taxed on occasion and when
deemed necessary by Parliament. Townshend, in particular, believed that the colonists’
argument British and American taxes was absurd and that no distinction should be
made.135 Parliament had more authority over the colonial governments and therefore had
more of a right to tax the colonists, if it was needed.
Considering that the Townshend Acts were in violation of the very thing that the
colonists were fighting against with the Stamp Act, it came as no surprise that the
Townshend Acts met similar reactions. The colonists felt that the Townshend Acts were
guilty of taxing for the sake of solely raising revenue. According to the colonists, there
was a distinction to be made of what the purpose of the taxes was and they believed that
it was unconstitutional for Great Britain to raise taxes for the purpose of raising revenue.
The Opposition of the Parliament, which consisted of the Rockinghams, Chathamites,
and the Grenvilles, were not necessarily fully supportive of the colonists’ cause. They
did believe however that the issue must be resolved between the colonists and Parliament
because the rising tension between the two parties was causing the government to lose
credibility.136
As a response to the Townshend Acts, Samuel Adams wrote the Circular Letter in
1768.137 The letter explained how Adams, speaking on behalf of the Massachusetts
House of Representatives, believed that the taxes imposed by the Townshend Acts were
134
Miller, Origins of the American Revolution, 251.
135
Ibid.,243.
136
Donoughue, British Politics and the American Revolution, 6.
137
Miller, Origins of the American Revolution, 258.
38 illegal based on their violation of the English Constitution. Adams stated in the letter that
the disagreements that the colonists and Britain were having was not on the question on
whether or not the colonies did not respect the crown or the Parliament. The issue that
they had with the Townshend Acts was because of the fact that the passing of the taxes
was in violation of the English Constitution itself.
“That it is an essential unalterable Right in nature, engrafted into the British
Constitution, as a fundamental Law & ever held sacred & irrevocable by the
Subjects within the Realm, that what a man has honestly acquired is absolutely his
own, which he may freely give, but cannot be taken from him without his consent:
That the American Subjects may therefore exclusive of any Consideration of
Charter Rights, with a decent firmness adapted to the Character of free men &
Subjects assert this natural and constitutional Right.”138
The letter was a call upon Parliament to realize their mistake and to make clear that the
colonists did respect the Parliament. The colonists just wanted them to see that
Parliament should be following and defending the English constitution along with them.
The patriots and the majority of the British Parliament obviously still did not see
eye to eye, and this time, only some of the Townshend Acts were repealed.139 The
colonists were obviously not convincing the British to see it from their perspective and
vice versa. Both were at a standstill and neither wanted to back down. This inability to
understand the other’s view or point of the arguments caused resentment to build up
towards each other.140 The Whigs did not fully join the colonists’ side because they did
not fully agree with their political arguments and their use of the English constitution.
However, they did see that these conflicts were getting out of hand and did agree with the
138
Samuel Adams, "Massachusetts House of Representatives, Circular Letter to the Colonial Legislatures."
(The Founder's Constitution. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s13.html).
139
Gordon Wood, The American Revolution, (New York: The Modern Library, 2002), 36.
140
Miller, Origins of the American Revolution, 408.
39 colonists when they were petitioning for reconciliation that the fighting between the
colonists and Parliament needed to cease.141
The Coercive Acts, also called the Intolerable Acts, credited to have united the
colonists.142 Up to this point, the colonists were in agreement that they believed that
Great Britain was committing a wrong against them; however, they were still unsure on
how to approach the situation. The nation became divided between patriots, the ones
who wanted to fight against Britain, and the loyalists, the ones who had their devotion to
the Crown first. The Coercive Acts were four measures decreed by Parliament, and as a
reaction to the Boston Tea Party.143 The first measure was to close down the Boston
harbor until payment of the destroyed tea was repaid. The second measure was the
Massachusetts Government Act, which degraded the colony’s status to the level of a
crown colony. The third measure was the Administration of Justice Act which allowed
British officials who had committed crimes tried in either England or another colony.
The fourth measure was a revival of the previously repealed Quartering Act, which
forced American colonists to take in British troops whenever necessary.144 The fifth and
last measure, which sometimes considered as a part of the Coercive Acts was the Quebec
Act, removed all the rights to the land between Ohio and the Mississippi River from the
jurisdiction of the colonies to the colony of Quebec. All five of these measures were due
to the colonists’ unwillingness to comply with British decrees. The Coercive Acts, just as
141
Donoughue, British Politics and the American Revolution, 6.
142
Derry, English Politics and the American Revolution, 112.
143
Wood, The American Revolution, 38.
144
Ibid.
40 the title suggests, were meant to force the colonists into submission.145 King George
believed that this was the only solution to the given situation. He saw that the colonists
were not backing down and the Coercive Acts were King George’s way of saying that he
would not either. The ultimatum for the colonists was to either give in or to fight back.
The colonists were greatly offended by the Coercive Acts because it meant that
Parliament was directly ignoring their views. The Quartering Act in particular had gotten
repealed earlier and its policies proved to the colonists’ voices not being heard by
Parliament.146 In response to the Coercive Acts, the colonies answered by releasing
resolves or resolutions that stated each of their own views on the situation. While the
colonists were still divided on what to do in response to the Coercive Acts, they did
believe that action was necessary. The first Continental Congress had gotten called into
order to discuss the next step. Conservatives and radicals both attended the meeting and
debated the proper course of action. Its chief task was to have reconciliation between
Great Britain and the colonies and the conservatives believed that Congress should be the
first to offer peace. However, the radicals believed that a more direct course of action
was needed so that the same issues would not arise in the future.147 Both the
conservatives and radicals seemed to get their way through the series of petitions that
were sent out by the Continental Congress. This paralleled along with the Opposition
group of Parliament forming their own petitions as well for there to be reconciliation
talks between the colonists and Parliament.148 The Continental Congress first wrote and
145
Derry, English Politics and the American Revolution, 114.
146
Wood, The American Revolution, 38.
147
Miller, Origins of the American Revolution, 368-369.
148
Bradley, Popular Politics and the American Revolution in England, 23.
41 sent the Declaration and Resolves in 1774. It listed the transgressions that the Congress
believed that Parliament were guilty of committing and further explanation to why they
believed that their views were right. The Continental Congress also sent a Petition to the
King in 1774, which also did the same as the Declaration and Resolves but in a more
detailed manner. Congress clearly wished nothing more than reconciliation from the
King. “We ask but for peace, liberty, and safety. We wish not a diminution of the
prerogative, nor do we solicit the grant of any new right in our favor. Your royal
authority over us and our connection with Great Britain we shall always carefully and
zealously endeavor to support and maintain.”149 However, the petition also stated that
reconciliation could not be met if the king does not agree to protect the interests and the
freedom of the colonies in the future.150
In the year of 1774, there was a gradual shift towards the revolutionary movement
that was rising out of this bed of unrest. The petition to King George III was the last
attempt in appealing to the British for help and afterwards would close any possibility of
reconciliation. Colonists turned towards Whig ideology more to help with this transition
more towards the Revolution. In one political document written in 1774, it stated this
pattern coming into play. The written principles of John Locke, John Trenchard, and
Thomas Gordon were two of the Whig writers that Matthew Robinson-Morris Rokeby,
the writer of this political document, cited in the document along with Lord Molesworth,
Lord John Ruffel, and Algernon Sydney. He stated that these were “great but unfortunate
149
The First Continental Congress, Petition to King George III. "National Humanities Center.”
(http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/makingrev/crisis/text7/petitionkinggeorge3.pdf, 2012).
150
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North
Carloina Press), 18.
42 men, whom their zeal and virtue have led to martyrdom for the liberties of their country
and the welfare of mankind; but that they are likewise the real principles of our present
actual government, the principles of the Revolution and those on which are established
the throne of the King and the settlement of the illustrious family now reigning over
us.”151 Rokeby described the Whigs as martyrs for the cause of freedom for the people
and stated how the Whigs and their principles were what connected the colonies with
Great Britain. The Whig Party was a part of the Parliament and therefore represented
Great Britain. The values that Whigs represented were alike in character with the
American Revolution and it was through these similarities that helped bring the cause of
the colonists to be very close to Whig ideology in its character.
Conclusion
There were indirect influences of England’s political system and ideologies seen
throughout American political discourse. Some of the sources came from the history of
England and English politics and politicians.152 At the earlier part of the conflict between
England and America, colonists viewed the English political system as perfect.153 The
Americans saw the American Revolution as a conservative movement of preserving the
British political system that they highly respected.154 The colonists thought that they
were protecting the traditional political tradition that they believed that the current
151
Rokeby, Matthew Robinson-Morris. "Considerations on the measures carrying on with respect to the
British colonies in North-America." 1774, 6.
152
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, 7; Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the
American Revolution, 35.
153
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, 11.
154
Ibid., 13.
43 political system ruling Great Britain at the time was veering further away from. As the
debate of representation and taxation began, the colonists began using the traditional
British political ideas as their defense for their arguments. The colonists believed that
Great Britain was getting further away from what their traditional form of government
used to be. Americans fought the Revolutionary War because they believed that they
were the last preservers of liberty, which is what they believed that the British
constitutional monarchy originally stood for.155 It was not until the writing of the
Declaration of Independence that the American colonists formally broke ties with
England because they had lost hope that England would ever change and return their
loyalties to the original form of government that they had abandoned.
It was discontented English citizens that first founded the American colonies; in
other words the colonies originally were a smaller representation of England. It is also
logical and important to note that these colonies lived a great distance away from their
mother country, and this would eventually lead to the creation of the colonists’ own
culture, society, and ideas. This change from being a representation of England to the
creation of America’s own identity helped explain how the colonists came to form their
own unique political ideologies. The Whig Party was greatly influential in helping the
colonists form their own political ideologies. It was the ideas of balanced government,
the relationship between human nature and politics, and the British government betraying
its own constitution that had caused colonists to starting building American political
ideology.
155
Ibid., 12.
44 The Whig ideology had importance in the development of American political
thought. The colonists were inspired by the ideas that the Whigs presented at the time
and those ideas started the path towards the Revolution. It had allowed colonists to have
a means of making sense out of their situation through the reading of Whig thought.156 It
seemed unlikely at first to think of how the colonists changed their thinking from being
the preservers of the traditional form of British governing to the supposed rejection of the
English system for the formation of a better constitutional government. In reality, the
colonists used Whig ideology when forming their own ideas. In analyzing the path in
which it took to get the colonists to the writing of the constitution, it is clear to see the
Whig influences that are imbedded in America’s new constitutional government and it
provides an explanation of how such a drastic change in views could be possible. The
Whig Party’s significant contributions in helping the colonists find their own political
identity made Americans indebted to the Whigs for the creation of their new republic.
156
Maier, From Resistance to Revolution, xx-xxi.
45 CHAPTER THREE
Whig Influences on American Politics—1775-1783
Introduction With “the shot heard all around the world,” the beginning of the American
Revolution became the point in time in which the majority of the colonists were willing
to take up arms to fight for their beliefs. From the years of 1775 to 1783, the American
Revolution took place in the colonies and it proved to be the greatest test of the colonists’
will in defending their rights. In the years leading up to the Revolution, ideas of
separating from Great Britain were starting to circulate around and among the colonists.
The colonists viewed the American Revolution as the last solution to their problems they
were facing. The colonies had sent petitions to King George III to appeal to reason and
to compromise with the colonists. Many colonists were unwilling to give up their loyalty
to the British Crown, even during the Revolutionary War. There were still many
colonists who wanted compromise and peace with their mother country, and these
colonists were labeled as the loyalists. However the patriots, the colonists who wanted
better treatment from the mother country, saw that the King was not willing to
compromise and they resorted to their last option, which was to fight for their rights. It
was during the American Revolutionary War that the colonies were not only fighting
actual battles but they were also fighting a philosophical and ideological battle on the
home front. The colonies were divided in their views of their situation, with the range
being from the views of a loyalist to a patriot and everything in between. Even though
there was enough consensus to support the war effort during the Revolution, there were
46 still debates on what they would stand for as a united body since it was at this time that
they started seeing themselves as a united body instead of separate colonies. It was from
this state of turmoil that America started to form its own identity and its own set of ideals
that it would later on treasure as a nation.
Whig Party Support
One of the largest influences on the colonists and their resistance was the Whig
Party and its ideology. The Whig Party in Great Britain was known to uphold certain
political ideas that helped formed the Whig ideology. It was the Whig politicians’
writings and defense of these ideas that helped cement Whig ideology. Examples of how
Whig politicians acted in British Parliament helped the colonists gain first-hand
knowledge of how to apply these ideas into their own government. This was also
reciprocated when some Whig politicians would support the colonists in their defense of
their rights. When the political debates would arise in Parliament on the colonists’
situation, Whig Party members would sometimes side with the colonists.157 The Whigs
agreed with the colonists in the fact that the British constitution should be held to the
upmost importance above anything else.158 The Whigs defended the colonists in their
beliefs that they were not being treated as full British citizens because of the fact that they
did not have proper representation in Parliament.159 Having the Whig Party support the
colonists throughout their fight for independence seems to show that they had similar
political goals and interests. However, this is not sufficient proof of showing how the
157
Bernard Donoughue, British Politics and the American Revolution, 133.
158
John Derry, English Politics and the American Revolution, 167.
159
Ibid., 145.
47 colonists adopted Whig ideology into their defense of their rights and later on into their
nation’s constitution. Whig Party support served as a supplementary support of the larger
argument based on the assumption that the Whig Party fully embodied Whig ideology.
The finding of Whig political ideas in the colonists’ argument in pamphlets and other
forms of writing show more how directly Whig ideology affected the colonists’ views.
Hugh Williamson stated “they believe that there is a very respectable, a very numerous
body of men in this kingdom, who are generally distinguished by the name of Whigs,
who are friends to civil liberty and perfectly averse to the idea of taxing their brethren in
North America.”160 The correlation between the Whig Party and the colonists simply
showed how they shared similar political ideas.
While there were Whigs who greatly supported the colonists in their effort and
would be their voice in Parliament, all Whigs believed that the colonies declaring their
independence were unacceptable.161 Trevor Colbourn stated that “Whigs questioned the
wisdom but rarely doubted the authority of Parliament.”162 The Whigs never went so far
into denouncing the political system in Britain, while the colonists grew more
comfortable with doing so as time passed. The colonists did see that independence was
their last solution at one point in time, but as time passed, some of the colonists entered
the war wanting separation from the British crown.163 Apart from the agreement that
independence was not an option, Whigs had varied reactions and opinions on the
160
Hugh Williamson. "The plea of the colonies on the charges brought against them by Lord Mansfield,
and others, in a letter to His Lordship. By a native of Pennsylvania." 1777, 6.
161
Trevor Colbourn, The Lamp of Experience,188.
162
Ibid., 185-186.
163
Ibid., 186.
48 colonists’ situation. It was a widely debated topic in the British Isles. In the years 1775
to 1778, approximately 44,000 Englishmen petitioned the King about America.164 There
were a variety of Whigs that would present new bills and ideas to Parliament as possible
solutions that would appease both Great Britain and the colonies. Some of these bills
were recognized as infringing the colonists’ rights as British citizens and some of the
Whig Party members were demanding for better representation on the colonists’ behalf.
The majority turned down these bills but these public efforts of finding compromise
showed how much the Whigs wanted to find peace and to meet the colonists’ requests
half-way.165
There were many divisions in Parliament on the matter of the colonies and there
were also many differing opinions within the Whig Party as well. The faction that was
the most involved with the colonists’ matter was the Rockingham Whigs. Led by Charles
Watson-Wentworth, the Rockingham Whigs gained great favor in Parliament until the
1770s, when they started to lose their political power, so they joined with the Chatham
Whigs to gain greater influence.166 The Rockingham Whigs greatly favored
reconciliation between Britain and her discontented colonies.167 The Rockingham Whigs
sympathized with the colonies and knew from first-hand experience what it felt like to be
oppressed by the royal authority. However, the Rockingham Whigs never supported the
164
Stephen Conway, The British Isles and the War of Independence, (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
2000), 135.
165
Donoughue, British Politics and the American Revolution, 133.
166
John Brewer, Party Ideology and Popular Politics, 80.
167
S. M. Farrell, “Wentworth, Charles Watson-, Second Marquess of Rockingham (1730–1782)”,
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28878).
49 diminishing respect of the Crown’s sovereignty.168 This showed in the Whigs’ support of
the Boston Port Bill. In Parliament, there were two main opposing sides in what way
they should approach the misbehavior of the colonies. Some Members of Parliament
thought of applying more coercive tactics while the others wanted reconciliation.169 With
the Rockingham Whigs supporting the Boston Port Bill, which closed the ports of Boston
until the colonists could repay for the tea that was destroyed at the Boston Tea Party,
proved that they believed that coercion was the best tactic in sending their message across
the Atlantic Ocean.170 The Boston Port Bill was in response to the Boston Tea Party.
This drastic form of revolt was unforgivable by most Parliament members.171 The
Rockingham Whigs slowly waned their support of the colonists as their actions became
more radical. The Rockingham Whigs helped repeal the Stamp Act and the Townshend
Acts, but with their own motives in mind. This loose support quickly disappeared after
the Boston Tea Party.172 This marked the general shift of support within Parliament
itself. After the events of the Boston Tea Party, it was clear to Britain that the colonists
were no longer respecting the sovereignty of Parliament and this led the previous
supporters within Parliament of the American cause to be more distant from it.173
168
Donoughue, British Politics and the American Revolution, 133.
169
Derry, English Politics and the American Revolution, 115.
170
John Miller, Origins of the American Revolution, 358.
171
Ibid., 348.
172
Donoughue, British Politics and the American Revolution, 147.
173
Ibid., 152.
50 Another Whig faction that supported the colonists was the Chatham Whigs. The
leader of the Chatham Whigs was the Earl of Chatham, William Pitt.174 The Chatham
Whigs were one of the major influential factions of the Whig Party because William Pitt
had the political power that caused him to be a significant Whig.175 Pitt also proved to be
one of the colonists’ biggest supporters in Parliament. On January 20, 1775, Pitt
presented a resolution in the House of Lords stating that the troops in Boston removed
and that Parliament should recognize the Philadelphia Congress.176 This was a highly
controversial political move made by Pitt, which caused him to lose support and became
politically isolated.177 His bill never gained enough support to have it passed, but this
was a bold move for a British politician to make.178 Pitt’s supporters before he issued the
bill were great in number but decreased after Pitt presented the bill. After the
Rockingham Whigs’ power and popularity had diminished, they worked with the
Chatham Whigs because of their similar political views. However, even though the
Rockingham Whigs supported Pitt, they did not agree on every issue. The Rockingham
Whigs in particular disagreed with Chatham’s bill because it criticized the Declaratory
Act.179 While there were some differences in opinion within each Whig faction, their
similarities were what made the Whigs overall influential supporters for the colonists’
cause.
174
Brewer, Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III, 79.
175
Farrell, “Wentworth, Charles Watson-”, (http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28878).
176
Derry, English Politics and the American Revolution, 132, 134.
177
Ibid., 135.
178
Ibid., 136-137.
179
Ibid., 134.
51 Another supporter of the Rockingham and Chatham Whigs was Edmund Burke,
who was a Whig Member of Parliament.180 Edmund Burke was an influential Whig
Party member and was most well-known for being Charles James Fox’s mentor, another
important Whig Party member. Just as the Rockingham and Chatham Whigs believed,
Burke believed that a balanced government that rules with a constitution allowed the
British government to function more properly.181 Burke also believed that reconciliation
was the best policy in dealing with the situation in the colonies because he believed that
the colonists did have the right to liberty as English citizens did.182 He agreed that
Parliament had not given the colonists the proper representation and he appealed to the
Commons to see the side of the colonists. Burke even proposed that each colony should
form its own assembly so that the colonies could be more properly represented.183 Like
Pitt and his suggestions, there was opposition against Burke’s proposal. The majority of
Parliament did not agree with Burke in that the colonists deserved the same rights as
English citizens because colonists never paid the same amount that English citizens
paid.184 Both Burke and the Rockingham Whigs supported the Declaratory Act. This is a
small picture of the larger issue at hand. None of the Whigs, who supported the
American side, really understood how far the colonists’ lack of respect towards the
180
Paul Langford, “Burke, Edmund (1729/30–1797)”, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4019).
181
Derry, English Politics and the American Revolution, 139.
182
Donoughue, British Politics and the American Revolution, 133.
183
Derry, English Politics and the American Revolution, 145.
184
Ibid.
52 sovereignty of Britain was.185 This misunderstanding caused the support of the
Americans to seem weaker than it really appeared to be.
These significant Whig Party members had important roles in not only their party
but were also influential in Parliament as well. Charles Watson-Wentworth, William Pitt,
Edmund Burke, and Charles James Fox all risked their good-standing in the Whig Party
and in Parliament to defend the colonists to the best of their ability. These party
members did not completely see everything the way the Americans did, but they were in
agreement on the key fundamental issues such as representation, taxation, and rights to
liberty. They were sympathetic to the colonists because they also saw that as British
citizens, Parliament was infringing upon the colonists’ rights. For example, William Pitt
gave a speech on the issue of property that occurred in 1775 with the colonists. “As an
American I would recognize to England her supreme right of regulating commerce and
navigation: As an Englishman by birth and principle, I recognize to the Americans their
supreme unalienable right in their property; a right which they are justified in the defense
of, to the last extremity, to maintain this principle is the common cause of the Whigs on
the other side of the Atlantic, and on this.” He saw the situation from their point of view
and supported in their want to defend this right. He believed that this aligned with the
Whig Party’s principles. However, this support did not carry on to the very core of the
revolution that was building across the Atlantic Ocean. Throughout the disputes, the
colonists started to see how Britain did not have its best interests in mind. Forced to pay
taxes and fight in wars for their Mother country, the colonists believed that they did not
receive the same rights as their fellow Englishmen in Britain. This realization sparked
185
Ibid., 146.
53 the revolution that led the two sides to test their beliefs in the American Revolutionary
War.
A Call into Action
The American Revolutionary War was the arena in which both sides could prove
how much they were willing to show that what they believed to be true was right.
Thousands of young men sacrificed their lives for the cause because for each side, this
war was attacking their fundamental beliefs. A majority of Great Britain felt taking up
arms against the colonists was wrong because they could not bear the thought of killing
their own countrymen.186 Great Britain saw the American Revolutionary War as a civil
war, almost no different than the civil war they fought just a century before.187 The
Americans saw this war a little differently. They still saw themselves as British for the
most part, but in the years leading up to the start of the Revolutionary War, the colonists
realized that the English constitution no longer reigned in Great Britain, which was a
political system that they highly revered. The American Revolution was a preservation
of their rights and liberties and wanted to be a nation that preserved the political system
that once ruled Britain.188 The supporters of the American cause saw the colonists as the
last standing example of English freedom and virtue.189 Just as the British did, the
colonists also saw themselves as British citizens, however they felt that this fact was
secondary to the greater important issue of protecting liberty.
186
Derry, English Politics and the American Revolution, 158-159.
187
Gordon Wood, The American Revolution, 59.
188
Colbourn, The Lamp of Experience, 187.
189
Ibid.
54 Both sides had reached the culminating point when the outbreak of the American
Revolutionary War occurred at the Battle of Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775.190
Great Britain had the assumption that Massachusetts was the main problem and if they
could coerce Massachusetts into obedience, then it could serve as an example for the
other colonies. This can be shown through the Boston Port Bill and the Coercive Acts,
which were largely targeted towards Boston because of their uprisings.191 This started
not only the physical fighting that was going on in the Americas but the political fighting
escalated as well. The colonists sent the Olive Branch Petition to King George III, who
had ignored it. On August 23, 1775 George III claimed that the colonists were in open
rebellion. Constant fighting between Great Britain and the American colonies would lead
the colonies on the path towards independence.
The most important and influential writing that convinced the colonies that
independence was the only option left was Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. Thomas
Paine was an Englishman who had only been in the colonies for two years when he wrote
Common Sense. However, despite his short time in the American colonies, Paine
understood what enraged the colonists so much. Common Sense was a pamphlet that
Paine wrote on the conflict between Great Britain and the American colonies to convince
the colonists in a logical manner why living under British rule was no longer feasible.
Common Sense outwardly attacked the King, which was the last thing that was keeping
the colonists from being fully supportive of a revolution.192 The colonists viewed
190
Wood, The American Revolution, 53.
191
Ibid.
192
Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 286.
55 Parliament as the institution to blame for all their grievances. The colonists still had
respect for their king and appealed to him to intervene until they realized that he too was
against them.193 Common Sense and its attack upon the monarchy was the push that the
colonists needed to dedicate their lives to the revolution and to completely devote them to
the cause of the Revolution.
Paine built his argument upon the foundations of the political ideology of the
colonists that was already shaping at the time. In this manner, Paine appealed to the
colonists by agreeing upon what they had already known and then added on top of that
the attacks on the institution of monarchy and the hereditary succession. At the
beginning of Common Sense, Paine listed the faults of the English constitution.194 He
stated that there are many issues with entrusting a monarch and the aristocrats to rule
virtuously and the check that was placed upon these powers was the Commons. Having
these checks in place already had great faults because the king was deemed as wiser than
the Commons. The fact that the king had greater power than the Commons proved this
fact.195 Paine pulled apart the very thing that the colonists were rallying behind, the
English constitution, and showed how there were some faults in trusting in that system
alone. The thing that threatened the British government, which was built upon the
English constitution, was that it could be in danger of a tyrannous ruler taking control of
the people. This alone was a radical idea to the colonists because they held the English
constitution up as their model for their cause. Paine allowed them to see that there were
193
Ibid.
194
Thomas Paine, Common Sense, Collected Writings, Edited by Eric Foner, (New York: The Library of
America, 1995), 9-10.
195
Ibid., 10.
56 faults in even the older way of governing in Great Britain, and the colonists could build a
new governing system that had better bulwarks against tyranny and corruption. This
attack on the English constitution that the colonists desired as their own governing
system deviated from Whig ideology as well. Whig ideology supported the ancient
constitution that the colonists supported too. The English constitution was an example of
a contract that was agreed upon between the ruler and his people.196 John Locke touched
on this idea in Treatises of Government. Locke defended this idea that government should
be a mutual understanding between the ruler and the governed. The sovereignty rested in
the people and gave the government the power to rule over them.197 Even though Paine
attacked the English constitution that the colonists revered, he still held on to the
fundamental idea of having mixed government. He wanted the colonists to take the basic
ideas out of the English constitution that they loved and to make it even better by having
more checks and balances in a new governing system that could prevent the rule of
another tyrannical leader.
The other main purpose of Common Sense was to shatter the view of monarchy
being a perfect system. Paine called upon the colonists to think in biblical terms on how
God viewed monarchy. He used many examples from the Bible to show how monarchy
was never God’s intent for his people. Paine also denounced the idea of hereditary
succession by stating how the idea of entrusting an individual with the power to rule due
to ancestry was an absurd idea. There was always a chance for the monarchy to be a fool
who did not know how to properly rule a nation because the ruler was not based on his or
196
George Guttridge, English Whiggism and the American Revolution, (Berkeley, CA : University of
California Press, 1963), 631.
197
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 21.
57 her abilities.198 Monarchy also allowed minors to rule a nation which increased the
amount of corruption that could occur when other leaders could take over or influence the
young monarch into whatever direction he or she pleased.199 This showed how the
system of monarchy had many flaws and it was not seen as a political institution that the
colonies want to continue to model after.
The dangers of corruption that could occur in a ruler were one of the concerns of
Whigs and their ideology. This can be shown in Cato’s Letters, by John Trenchard and
Thomas Gordon. In Cato’s Letters, another pivotal and fundamental political writings
that helped shaped Whig ideology, Trenchard and Gordon addressed the issue of
tyrannical rulers and stated that virtue was a check upon a ruler’s power. It was their
belief that the temptation of having so much power can cause a ruler to abuse his right to
rule and only a virtuous person could stand a chance against these temptations.200 This
more realistic view of monarchy allowed colonists to break away from the last thing that
was still connecting them with the British, which then allowed them to publicly declare
their independence.
A monumental American document that would sever all ties from Great Britain
was the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence placed the
responsibility of all the times that Britain had infringed upon the colonists’ rights on King
George III.201 This was a public proclamation of the colonists’ desire to remove English
control of the colonies. This document had great political importance for both America
198
Paine, Common Sense, Edited by Eric Foner, 16.
199
Ibid., 18.
200
Hamowy, ed., Trenchard, and Gordon, Cato's Letters, 239-240.
201
Wood, The American Revolution, 56.
58 and Great Britain. To America, this was act of true rebellion and the release of the
Declaration of Independence not only united the colonies under one cause during the
Revolutionary War but it also meant that the rebelling colonists were committing treason
against their mother country.202 To Great Britain, the Declaration of Independence was a
confirmation of their worst fears coming true and gave the British a clear idea of how the
colonists felt about their current situation. Parliament wanted to exhaust every other
option possible before taking up arms against the colonists.203 However with the issuing
of the Declaration of Independence, both sides further instilled the necessity of the
Revolutionary War.
Both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States
started out with emphasizing how America comprised of one body of people.204 Uniting
the people was necessary to fight in the Revolutionary War. This allowed the
Declaration of Independence to not only serve as the last push that the colonists needed
but it also formally declared to not only Great Britain but to the world what they were
fighting for.205 The Declaration of Independence laid out all the rights that the colonists
believed were rightfully theirs and foreshadowed what they would value most when they
formed their own national government. These rights that were written in the Declaration
202
Donald Lutz, "The Declaration of Independence as Part of an American National Compact." (Publius.
19. no. 1 (1989): 41-58), 48.
203
Conway, The British Isles and the War of Independence, 130.
204
Lutz, "The Declaration of Independence as Part of an American National Compact." 43.
205
Wood, The American Revolution, 57.
59 of Independence have similarities with the ideas that John Locke and other significant
Whig philosophers had written.206
The Declaration of Independence emphasized the natural rights that citizens had
and how these were God-given. These “unalienable rights that among these are life,
liberty and the pursuit of happiness” showed which rights that the colonists valued the
most.207 In Whig ideology, liberty was especially important.208 These rights were held
with the utmost importance in the colonies because of the lack of freedom had
experienced under British rule. The Enlightenment idea of sovereignty moving from the
ruler to the people caused Americans to feel that they were not receiving the liberty that
they thought they deserved under Great Britain. John Locke was known to have
popularized the idea of natural rights. In his Two Treatise of Government, he based his
reasoning on the idea that all men are created equal and should therefore be equal in
government.209 This notion of all men deserving the same rights was radical in the
Enlightenment period and it shows through in the text of the Declaration of
Independence.
Sovereignty resting in the people instead of the ruler was a radical shift at this
time. Great Britain’s rule based on the idea that sovereignty rested in the monarch and
that he or she has divine providence to rule. This was the source of the British
government’s power. This showed through analyzing the Whig Party’s views on this
206
Lutz, "The Declaration of Independence as Part of an American National Compact." 41.
207
Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, Sources and Documents Illustrating the
American Revolution and the Formation of the Federal Constitution, Edited by S. E. Morison, (London:
Oxford University Press, 1929), 157.
208
Donoughue, British Politics and the American Revolution, 133.
209
John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 21.
60 matter. Even the staunch supporters of the Americans and their cause all disagreed with
Americans on questioning the sovereignty of Parliament. The Whigs never went so far in
disrespecting and abandoning what they saw was infallible, which was the British
government.210 The Declaration of Independence showed that the colonists believed that
sovereignty rested in the people when it stated that “but when a long train of abuses and
usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object convinces a design to reduce them under
absolute despotism, it is their [people’s] right, it is their [people’s] duty, to throw off such
government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”211 This proved how the
colonists had adopted the Enlightenment idea of sovereignty resting the people into their
political ideology because of the idea of popular sovereignty. Sovereignty in the people
was another idea that Locke presented in his Two Treatise of Government. Locke
explained how the governed and the ruler enter a social contract that was based on an
agreement that the government’s duty is to protect the rights of their people and in return
the people give up some rights.212 This idea of common consent given to the government
to rule is also a fundamental value of Whig ideology.213 It was believed that this was the
best way of allowing the majority of the people rule in their favor.214 With the
sovereignty resting in the citizens rather than being in the government, this allowed the
citizens to overthrow a government that no longer has their best interests. Locke also
210
Trevor Colbourn, The Lamp of Experience, 188-189.
211
Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776, 157.
212
John Locke, Treatise of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, (New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, Inc., 1937), 63.
213
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, 56.
214
Ibid., 60.
61 provided a solution to a tyrannical government by stating that people had the right to
overthrow a corrupt government and to replace it with a new one that would better
protect their rights.215
Another key aspect that the Declaration of Independence briefly mentioned in the
above quote was having a government that has checks placed upon it. The English
constitution used the idea of checks and balances in government and highly valued by the
Whigs because power was perfectly balanced between the monarch and Parliament.216
Whigs desired governmental balance and thought it was essential in having the
government working its best in promoting the interest of the people.217 The Whigs were
really wary of government, especially when it was given absolute power. The colonists
also had this conspiratorial mindset.218 The colonists also valued the idea of having
checks and balances because the colonists upheld the English constitution as their support
for their cause. Even though Paine had attacked the English constitution in Common
Sense, the colonists still held on the outlines of the English constitution and improved
upon it in the formation of their own government.219
The Declaration of Independence was written at the beginning of the
Revolutionary War. With the shots that were fired at Lexington and Concord, the
revolution was fully in progress.220 During the time of most of the American
215
Locke, Treatise of Civil Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, 146-147.
216
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, 18-20.
217
Ibid., 20.
218
Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 98.
219
Paine, Common Sense, Collected Writings, Edited by Eric Foner, 10.
220
Wood, The American Revolution, 53.
62 Revolutionary War, state constitutions were governing each state. In the years 1776 to
1777, the colonists created state constitutions that would prevent future tyrannies.221 In
regards to the power of the executive, the state constitutions departed from the traditional
form of allowing one person to rule and instead gave the power to popular legislatures.222
This change showed how deeply affected the colonists were living under monarchial
government and how strongly they believed in their new political ideas. In the years of
1777 to 1781, the states were debating and agreeing upon a document that would rule
over them as a union. This further convinced the colonies that did not like the Articles of
Confederation at first to reconsider in ratifying it in 1781.223
The Articles of Confederation, the document that ruled the united colonies for six
years, should not be dismissed as a failure as a constitution simply because the
Constitution of the United States replaced it in 1787.224 The process that went behind the
Articles of Confederation took much care and deliberation, taking into consideration the
difficulties they faced in dealing with a strong centralized government and the many
political documents that were contributing to the creation of the American political
ideology.225 The purpose of the Articles of Confederation was to carefully have the
colonies unified but allowing each colony to also rule by themselves. The power of the
states was greater in the Articles of Confederation and considering what the colonists had
221
Ibid., 66.
222
Ibid., 68.
223
Ibid., 71.
224
James Madison, Constitution of the United States. Sources and Documents Illustrating the American
Revolution and the Formation of the Federal Constitution, Edited by S. E. Morison, (London: Oxford
University Press, 1929), 292.
225
Wood, The American Revolution, 72.
63 to deal with in the past couple of decades with Great Britain, their fear of a strong
national government was understandable.
Where the Articles of Confederation had originated from was through the state
constitutions that were already in place before the creation of the confederacy.226
Colonies were formally establishing governments and placed their constituents as the
most important in the laws that each of the state’s constitution had outlined. Rhode
Island and Connecticut were republics because of the fact that they did not mention any
loyalty to a monarch in their charters.227 How American colonists viewed constitutions
affected the formation of the Articles of Confederation. In eighteenth-century England, a
constitution was an unwritten set of values that a ruling government would embody.228
However the colonists viewed constitutions as a formal written document. This
difference caused colonists and Englishmen alike to disagree on one of the fundamental
parts of a government. The colonists believed that because England had no written
constitution, that meant that there were no boundaries for the government.229 American
colonists changed the view of what a constitution was from a loose set of ideals of how a
government should act to a written-down document that the government had to follow.230
Thomas Paine defined a constitution as “body of elements, to which you can refer, and
quote articles by articles; and which contained the principles on which the government
shall be established, the manner in which it shall be organized, the power it shall have,
226
Ibid., 65.
227
Ibid., 65-66.
228
Zook, Radical Whigs, 68.
229
Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 182.
230
Ibid., 185.
64 the mode of elections, the duration of Parliaments, or by what other name such bodies
may be called.”231 It was by this idea of what a constitution was that the colonists set
forth to create the Articles of Confederation.
The Articles of Confederation’s purpose was to form a confederacy and it was
under this document that the colonies were given the name “United States of
America.”232 Under this newly formed confederacy, each colony now labeled as a state.
Outlined in the Articles of Confederation the Congress, a continuation of the Second
Continental Congress, judicial power needed in resolving disputes between states, the
power to enter the union into war, and to dictate the value of money were all parts of the
Articles of Confederation.233 While it seemed that these were significant powers given to
the Congress, there were checks placed on these responsibilities. Congress needed to
have a majority of votes to be able to pass any form of action.234 A committee of nine or
more states could also remove the power of the Congress if it deemed prudent.235 The
Articles of Confederation centered on the idea of protecting the states and their
sovereignty to rule and this could be seen in the Congress’ limited power. The beginning
of the document states that “each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this
231
Jack Lively, and Adam Lively, Democracy in Britain: A Reader, (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994), 11.
232
Wood, The American Revolution, 71.
233
Dickinson, John. Articles of Confederation. Sources and Documents Illustrating the American
Revolution and the Formation of the Federal Constitution. Edited by S. E. Morison. London: Oxford
University Press, 1929, 180-183.
234
Ibid., 184.
235
Ibid., 185.
65 Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”236 The
majority of the document laid out the purpose of having the states entered in this union
and checks placed upon the confederacy to secure the protection of the states.
One of the important figments that the Articles of Confederation protected was
property, highly valued in Whig ideology.
“…and the people of each state shall have free ingress and regress to and from
any other state, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce,
subject to the same duties, impositions and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof
respectively, provided that such restriction shall not extend so far as to prevent the
removal of property imported into any state, to any other state, of which the
owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall
be laid by any state, on the property of the United States, or either of them.”237
Under the Articles of Confederation, the confederacy protected the states to freely trade
with one another and that their property would not be in danger.238 The value of property
was a significant facet of Whig ideology. It was considered under Whig politics to be the
indicator on whether or not one could participate in politics.239 Since property was a
requirement to be a citizen, it is understandable to see this being protected and outlined in
the Articles of Confederation.
The other main focus of the Articles of Confederation was the fact that
sovereignty rested in the states and not in the confederacy. This showed through its
emphasis of the states’ rights. This was different in Great Britain with their system of a
balanced constitution between the monarchy and Parliament. The Whigs highly
supported the sovereignty of Great Britain and disagreed with the colonists on their
236
Ibid., 178.
237
Ibid., 178-179.
238
Ibid., 179.
239
Leslie Mitchell, The Whig World: 1760-1837, 136.
66 revolution because of their lack of disregard to the sovereignty of both the king and
Parliament.240 While the colonists were more respectful towards the king and his
sovereignty in the time leading up to the Revolutionary War, the colonists gradually
shifted their views from sovereignty resting in the people. This was an Enlightenment
idea that the colonists applied and tried in the Articles of Confederation and carried on in
the Constitution of the United States as well.241 In this manner, the colonists differed in
their views from the Whig Party and held on to the Enlightenment idea of heralding the
voice of the majority.
Conclusion
Throughout the period of the American Revolutionary War, the colonists were
searching to find what their American identity was as a union. Throughout the conflicts
between the colonists and their mother country, both physical and political, both sides
were gaining greater insight into how the other viewed these topics of contention. At one
point in time they were under one nation and one mindset, but as the time and distance
separated the two sides, more discrepancies rose to the surface and erupted in the year of
1775. This pivotal year was the start of the Revolutionary War, which quickly followed
with the signing of the formal proclamation of America’s independence. This became the
point of no return for the colonists and they had to prove to themselves how strongly they
were willing to defend their beliefs in the Revolutionary War.
Through the three pivotal and historical documents that helped define the
Revolution—Common Sense, the Declaration of Independence, and the Articles of
240
Derry, English Politics and the American Revolution, 139.
241
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, 60.
67 Confederation—each shared insight into what the colonists held to be true in their minds.
Common Sense was instrumental giving the colonists in ceasing of putting false hopes in
King George III and to completely cut all their ties with Great Britain. Paine’s
convincing argument in showing how the English constitution was not flawless in the
way that the colonists saw it and called them to create a new and better constitutional
government. The Declaration of Independence followed Paine’s call to action and this
had shocked Great Britain with the news that they no longer wanted to be under Britain’s
protection. It also proclaimed the rights that they valued and the liberty that they so
desired but did not receive under Great Britain. The Articles of Confederation created a
new nation and an experiment to put all the ideas that the colonists had about government
into action. This pivotal document applied the ideas of checks and balances to have the
protection of a national government while still having the sovereignty rest in the states.
This document had parts of Whig ideology in not only the Articles of Confederation but
also the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense as well. Analyzing the
similarities that these documents have with Whig thought proves in an indirect way on
how Whig principles influenced the development of American political thought.
The support that the colonists received from the Whig Party proves how both held
similar views in their political ideology. While the two groups did disagree on some key
issues, their similarities show how Whig ideology had influenced the formation of the
colonists’ own form of government which shows through in the Declaration of
Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and later in the Constitution of the United
States. There were many influences that helped shaped America’s revolution and the
68 Whigs and their ideology had an indirect effect on America’s formation of a political
ideology.
69 CHAPTER FOUR
Whig Influences on American Politics—1783-1787
Introduction
After winning the Revolutionary War, Americans faced the task of building a new
nation. They attempted this with the ratification of the Articles of Confederation but the
Articles proved insufficient for the needs of the union. Then the founding fathers created
the Constitution that still governs America today. It was a conglomeration of ideas that
allowed the Constitution not only to be ratified by both small and large states but it also
presented safeguards within the national government. Many had feared that the
Constitution was too similar to the strong centralized British government. Others
believed that they needed a stronger federal government since the Articles of
Confederation placed more power in the state governments. It was these two opposing
ideas that were the concerns of the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists.242 After much
debate and consideration, the framers wrote and approved the Constitution and sent it out
for ratification. The principles represented in this founding document were the
culmination of ideas already present before the Revolution took place. Whig ideology
had a great impact on the formation of these political ideas in the colonies and they came
alive when directly applied, first to the state constitutions and then to the national
constitution.243 In the American Constitution, one can see deep influences of Whig
242
Gordon Wood, The American Revolution, 158.
243
Donald Lutz, The Origins of American Constitutionalism, (Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University
Press, 1988), 139.
70 ideology which demonstrate how important those ideas were to the creation of the new
republic.
American Constitutional Development
The Articles of Confederation only governed America for six years before it was
replaced by the American Constitution.244 There were many issues that arose in America
under the Articles and were meant to be resolved at the Constitutional Convention, which
originally was to solely revise the Articles.245 In the end what came out of the
Constitutional Convention was America’s second constitution. These issues that were
resolved through the American Constitution were serious concerns. Heated debates arose
between two sides that formed: the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists.246 Each side had
valid concerns and wanted to keep true to the principles of the revolution that they had
sacrificed so much for. The Federalists saw the great need for a new constitution and
believed that it should stay true to the revolution’s principles. The Anti-Federalists
however were more wary and felt that the Articles of Confederation simply needed
revision. These issues that both sides fought for showed the formation of America’s
political ideology. It was these significant principles shown throughout the Constitution
prove to show what the states valued and wanted as their government system.247 Through
the analysis of the Constitution’s ideas, one can find the essence of American political
ideology.
244
Wood, The American Revolution, 147-150.
245
Ibid., 151.
246
Ibid., 158-159.
247
Ibid., 165.
71 The desperate need for a more unified federal government was apparent
throughout the Revolutionary War. The creation of one was achieved through the writing
of the Articles of Confederation. The Articles of Confederation was ratified in 1781 after
it went through all thirteen states.248 The Articles formed a confederacy, described as a
union of the thirteen states.249 The purpose of the Articles was to have the sovereignty
remain in the states and the union, still limited, used as a way for there to be a governing
body to tax, to form a military, and to manage foreign and domestic affairs.250 However,
issues started to arise under the confederacy. As a newly formed nation with a large war
debt, the national government under the confederacy proved to be insufficient in its
power to deal with all its duties. One of the biggest issues that the federal government
had was financial. The federal government did not have the power to raise taxes that
would help pay off the country’s debt.251 The confederation did not have a uniform
currency and trade among the states was difficult to manage.252 It was also difficult to
reach agreement on any matter with all the states and the federal government could not
mediate these conflicts. Under the Articles of Confederation, the states asserted their
power over the federal government and it was very limiting in what the federal
government could accomplish.253 In the end, the Articles of Confederation needed
248
Ibid., 145.
249
Articles of Confederation, From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, Edited by Carl
Friedrich and Robert McCloskey, (New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1954), 9.
250
Ibid., 10-17.
251
Wood, The American Revolution, 146.
252
The Adoption of the Documents, From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, Edited by
Carl Friedrich and Robert McCloskey, (New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1954), xliv.
253
Wood, The American Revolution, 148.
72 revision because of the federal government’s lack of financial power. The federal
government could not directly manage foreign trade and this greatly weakened America’s
image internationally.254
The Philadelphia Convention, later called the Constitutional Convention, formed
by the Confederation Congress to revise the Articles of Confederation. Almost every
important political figure in each state sent to the Convention to add more powers to the
Confederation Congress. What actually stemmed from the Convention was the creation
of a new constitution that gave birth to a powerful federal government. Still the main
issue that needed to be addressed was to expand the federal government’s financial
responsibilities. Having the sovereignty rest in the states was to stay true to the principles
that spurred on the revolution; however, there was a lot of disunity within the
confederacy due to the federal government being the weaker in the state-nation
relationship.255 While there was much debate about the new constitution, some thought
that “a new central government… could save both the Congress from the states and the
states from themselves.”256 However, the main concern was to not give the central
government too much power. This concern was very common among the leaders at the
Constitutional Convention. There was great emphasis placed on virtue being more
important than the success of the new nation.257 Virtue’s importance showed through the
rest of the principles of the Constitution. This pessimism about the federal government
254
Ibid., 150.
255
Ibid., 151.
256
Ibid., 152-153.
257
Gordon Wood, Preface, Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American Constitution, Edited by
Ellen Frankel Paul and Howard Dickman, (New York: State University of New York Press, 1989), xi.
73 was more characteristic of the Anti-Federalists. They upheld themselves as wanting to
create the best republic that they could, which they believed was closer to the goals of the
revolution than what the Federalists had in mind.258 The Federalists’ desires were for a
stronger government, preferably a republic that had enough power to be effective. They
believed that under the confederacy, the states still fought against each other which
resulted in a weak government due to these divisions. This would cause America to be
vulnerable to more powerful nations. The Federalists also believed that they were
carrying on the revolution like the Anti-Federalists.259 This clash of opinions later
became the crux of the debates during the Convention. It was because of these differing
opinions presented at the Convention that led to the writing of the Constitution.260
The expansion of the financial responsibilities of the federal government was only
one of the many issues debated at the Philadelphia Convention. There were a wide range
of opinions on what each person believed a government should be like but they can
generally be divided up into Anti-Federalists and the Federalists. The very principles that
the colonists were discussing all throughout the seventeenth century considered at the
Convention and elements of Whig ideology can be found throughout these political
debates. One of the issues that the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists discussed was the
question of where sovereignty would reside in American government. It was believed
that sovereignty could only rest in one area, meaning that not more than one person or
unit could ultimately have control. The Anti-Federalists felt that having a strong national
258
Ralph Ketcham, Introduction, The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates,
Edited by Ralph Ketcham, (New York: Signet Classic, 2003), 17.
259
Ibid., 15.
260
The Adoption of the Documents, From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution, Edited by
Carl Friedrich and Robert McCloskey, xlvi-xlvii.
74 government would allow the sovereignty to rest in the federal government which would
leave the states’ sovereignty null and void.261 The Federalists argued that the sovereignty
ultimately did not rest in the federal government but in the people at large.262 The idea
was that the people gave the government permission to rule, which therefore would mean
that the power would be in the people themselves. The Federalists believed that the
government formed under the Constitution did not abandon the ideals of the revolution
like the Anti-Federalists claimed that it did. The Federalists felt that this new
government would be different from the government that ruled Great Britain. It differed
because the sovereignty rested in Parliament, a governing body, but not in directly in the
people.263 With the sovereignty resting in the people in America, it not only removed the
power from a strong centralized state but it also took the matter broader than simply
placing the power in an entity but in the people themselves. The difference between
British Parliament and the America’s form of government was the fact that the people
were not properly represented in Parliament, which was one of the issues that the
colonists had during the revolution. Americans believed that a representative assembly
should be a reflection of the people.
With sovereignty ultimately resting in the people, this would give people the right to
overthrow a tyrannical government, as implied by John Locke. In a way, it would mean
that people were the government because they had the last say in everything.264 This idea
of the government being for the people was a Whig idea and the most well-known
261
Wood, The American Revolution, 159.
262
Ibid.
263
Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, 202.
264
Ibid., 172-173.
75 iteration of this idea came in John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government. With many of
the principles that Locke presents in the Two Treatises of Government, Locke showed
how he believed that the people’s rights should be held at the upmost importance. Locke
emphasized that all men are created equal and only agreed to enter a contract with
government to rule for the protection of their rights by sacrificing some of their
liberties.265 However, if the government broke the agreed upon terms of the contract that
they entered, then the people have the ultimate choice in overthrowing the government if
it no longer protected the people’s best interests and goes beyond what the government
was permitted to do.266 The very fact that the people had the right to overthrow the
government to protect their own liberties proved that Locke believed that sovereignty
rested in the people. This principle was representative of Whig ideology, and paralleled
with the principle of the Constitution having the sovereignty rest in the people as well.
Having sovereignty rest in the people was what a republic essentially was. A
republic can be defined as the removal of a king or a strong power for an elective
system.267 The desire for a republic was the meaning of the revolution and what the
colonists fought for. The idea of republicanism came from classical historical sources
which helped shaped the colonists’ ideas of government. The colonists were reading
Renaissance interpretations of these classical sources on republicanism.268 The idea
behind a republic was people coming together and giving up their individual interests for
265
Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 21.
266
Ronald Hamowy, “Cato’s Letters, John Locke, and the Republican Paradigm,” 273.
267
Gordon Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, 47.
268
Ibid., 49-50.
76 the common good.269 This common consent of the people was the best way in respecting
the voice of the people according to Whig thought.270 However there was uncertainty in
how a republic would work in America. Republics that had worked in other countries
only had to cater to one composite group of people, the aristocracy.271 Many
philosophers believed that America had too diverse of a population for a republic to work
and there was much skepticism about the ability for the proposed Constitution to work.
Gordon Wood stated that “a simple republic, the opponents of the 1776 Constitution
argued, was impossible in America because of ‘the great distinction of persons, and
differences in their estates or property.’”272 This idea that a republic needed a
homogenous population for it to effectively work based on past examples of working
republics. There were no previous examples of a republic in a nation as diverse as
America. David Hume, a Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, suggested this and
believed that a republic could work in a large and diverse nation and therefore rejected
the older notion that it could only work in a smaller and homogenous population.273
The Anti-Federalists felt that a republic where the people were sovereign would
work if rulers and their intentions were kept in check as well. In the Centinel No. 1,
written by the Pennsylvanian Anti-Federalist Samuel Bryan, it stated that virtue was
needed to keep the people’s desires in check since they were given power. “A
republican, or free government, can only exist where the body of the people are virtuous,
269
Ibid., 53.
270
Ibid., 56.
271
Ibid., 230.
272
Ibid., 235.
273
Wood, The American Revolution, 162.
77 and where property is pretty equally divided; in such a government the people are the
sovereign and their sense or opinion is the criterion of every public measure; for when
this and an aristocracy, monarchy or despotism will rise on its ruin.”274 James Madison
argued in The Federalist No. 10 that America’s expanded territory would be beneficial.
Regardless of the size of the society, political factions would exist and having them more
spread out would make it less likely for a majority to take over and oppress a minority.275
There were greater safeguards in having a larger population. In a sense it was embracing
the fact that since there will always be a difference in opinion, the best way to integrate
this aspect of society is to utilize it and not suppress it. There were some concerns from
both the Anti-Federalists and Federalists but it seemed that both felt that a republic in
where the people would be sovereign would be viable in America’s unique situation if
certain measures were kept.
From the debates of the Philadelphia Convention, the Founding Fathers wrote the
Constitution. The Convention proposed the Constitution and felt that it had succeeded in
expanding the power of the federal government. Congress had control over the financial
sector of the government. Congress had the responsibility to collect taxes in order to pay
off the debts that helped defend the United States or benefited the general welfare of the
nation. It also had the responsibility to manage commerce on the international level and
to coin money.276 This directly addressed the many issues that the Articles of
Confederation had in regards to the financial responsibility given to the federal
274
Samuel Bryan, Centinel No. 1, The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates,
Edited by Ralph Ketcham, (New York: Signet Classic, 2003), 231.
275
James Madison, No. 10, The Federalist, Edited by Clinton Rossiter, (New York: New American
Library, 1961), 77.
276
Ibid., 51.
78 government. The Congress’s main purpose was to write and manage legislation but it
also was in control of the military as well. Even though the president was the
Commander in Chief of Army and the Navy of the United States, Congress was given the
power to declare war.277 This placed as a check upon the executive branch.
The Constitution goes into great detail on the roles of the three branches of
government and the checks that were placed on each of them. To satisfy both the large
and small states, the Constitution combined the two models of representation from the
Virginia and the New Jersey Plan and implemented the two suggestions in to the two
houses of the legislative branch. The House of Representatives, as suggested by its
name, was to be the political body that would be represented by the population of each
state. The Senate, which would give more power to the small states, would have two
representatives for each state.278 The president’s veto power on any legislation that was
presented to him or her was the check upon the legislative branch. These two branches
and the checks they have on each other showed an example of the concept of separation
of branches in play in the Constitution. The judicial branch’s role was to be the defender
and interpreter of the Constitution through trials. Their jurisdiction would be on conflicts
that arise between two or more states, a citizen and state, citizens in two different states,
citizens of the same state claiming lands in different states, and a state with a foreign
state.279 Each branch had its own distinct roles and each held a significant power that it
277
Ibid., 56.
278
Ibid., 48.
279
Ibid., 57.
79 has in ruling. The responsibilities represented in each branch showed how the federal
government had expanded greatly in its power.
The Anti-Federalists were still wary that the checks on each branch of
government would not be sufficient. Despite the fact that the Constitution was to be for
the people, as the first words of the document proclaim, the Anti-Federalists believed that
the people did not have the ability to hold the federal government accountable. Each
branch of the federal government would keep each other in check, but this allowed the
federal government to be only responsible for checking itself. This created an aristocracy
in a sense because the people were not the ones who were keeping the government in
check.280 The Federalists responded by stating that relying solely on the people was a
mistake and that the federal government placing checks upon itself was necessary. The
separation of powers with the three branches of government was meant to be this
safeguard, however it was not meant to take the power away from the people.281 Having
separate branches of government also allowed the minorities of the nation protected from
an overruling majority.282 This allowed less possibility of a faction taking control over
others by dividing the power in the government.
Being wary of the power of government when too concentrated in one person or
body was a concern of the Whigs. This was one of the biggest faults of the monarchy.
Virtue was considered even to be insufficient in guaranteeing the security of the nation.
John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon stated in Cato’s Letters that virtue was the only
280
Bryan, Centinel, No.1 , The Anti-Federalist Papers, Edited by Ralph Ketcham, 236.
281
James Madison, Federalist No. 51, The Federalist, Edited by Clinton Rossiter, (New York: New
American Library, 1961), 323.
282
Ibid., 234.
80 thing that can stand against the abuse of power, but only a truly virtuous person can do so
by not allowing the power to manipulate him or her.283 Trenchard and Gordon went
through some important historical figures and how they had abused their power. It
seemed that these rulers had the wrong intentions in gaining power and only used it for
their self-gain.284 This despondent outlook on trusting rulers to do the right thing when
given power to rule helped proved that too much power could not be given to one ruler.
One of the ways that the American Constitution applied this Whig idea was through the
creation of separate branches within the federal government. With the use of this model
of government, it proved that all the power should not be concentrated into one area and
there was a need to divide the power to ensure the security of the nation and to protect the
people’s rights. To the writers of the Constitution, the creation of a republic that had
separate branches allowed the federal government to keep its power while also making
sure that the government would not abuse this power as well.
After the Convention had written the Constitution, the Convention sent it out to
all the states for ratification. A lot of debate rose up when the Constitution was sent out
on whether or not states should ratify it. Anti-Federalists still had the same concerns they
had earlier in the Constitutional Convention. They feared that the power the federal
government had was too similar to the British monarchy that they had just recently been
liberated from. The Anti-Federalists believed that having the sovereignty rest in the
people would not be a good enough solution of making sure corruption or tyranny would
283
John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato’s Letters, 239-240.
284
Ibid., 201.
81 not take over the government.285 The Federalists believed that America governed under
the system presented in the Constitution without abandoning the principles of liberty and
the rights of the people that was the whole purpose of the revolution.286 They believed
that having the sovereignty rest in the people would be an even better check upon
government since the power would ultimately rest in the individuals. They believed that
this would be a better system of protecting freedom in America. These two viewpoints
were presented in the writings of the Anti-Federalists and the Federalists. These
writings’ purpose was to test the Constitution in determining whether or not the
Constitution was the best representation of America’s political ideology. In the end, the
Constitution gained enough votes to be ratified and thus began a new era of governance
in American history.
Founding Fathers
James Madison considered the “father of the constitution” because of his pivotal
role in the writing of the Constitution at the Philadelphia Convention.287 Among his
many contributions to the debates that were occurring at the convention, Madison wrote
the Virginia Plan, which helped start the formation of the Constitution. By analyzing the
principles stated in the Virginia Plan, Madison’s own political ideas found and then
compared with Whig ideology to find any similarities. The Virginia Plan was significant
due to the fact that it also spurred on the New Jersey Plan written in response to the
controversial proposal. This allowed the principles of the Constitution introduced at the
285
Wood, The American Revolution, 158.
286
Ibid., 159.
287
Lance Banning, “Madison, James (1751–1836)”, (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press, 2004, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/68625).
82 Convention was further debated in seeing whether or not these were qualities that the
founding fathers would want in the new constitution. The principles that the Virginia
Plan laid out were to address the issue of state governments and their insufficient
power.288 If the Virginia Plan was adopted as the new constitution that would govern the
United States, there would have been a significant shift of power from the states to the
federal government. The states would then be secondary in their relationship with the
national government. The Virginia Plan stated “resolved, that the Legislative, Executive,
and Judiciary powers within the several States ought to be bound by oath to support the
articles of Union.”289 There would be a single person in power as the executive with the
other two branches of government, legislative and judicial, having checks on the
executive.290 Madison believed that placing the power in the national government was
better than placing it in the states because the national government would be supporting
the good of the nation as a whole while the states would only consider their own
individual concerns.291 The idea of having the government centered on the need of the
united whole was similar to the idea of the sovereignty placed in the people instead of the
government. Having sovereignty resting in the people was common in early American
288
Gordon Wood, The Making of the Constitution, (Waco, TX: Markham Press Fund, 1987), 14.
289
James Madison, The Virginia Plan as Reported by the Committee of the Whole, From the Declaration of
Independence to the Constitution, Edited by Carl Friedrich and Robert McCloskey, (New York: The
Liberal Arts Press, 1954), 29.
290
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 56.
291
The Papers of James Madison Digital Edition, J. C. A. Stagg, editor, (Charlottesville: University of
Virginia Press, Rotunda, 2010).
83 political thought, which was derived from Whig ideology. This was a common Whig
thought and was the basis of what a republic should be.292
Another key aspect of the Virginia Plan was the fact that a branch of the government
elected by the people. Under the plan, the legislative branch separated into two parts
with one being elected directly by the people and the second part elected into power by
the legislators already in power. One part of the legislative branch elected by the people
and would be representative in proportion of the population size of each state. Madison
stated “this mode immediately introduces the people, and naturally inspires that affection
for the General Government which takes place towards our own offspring.”293 Giving the
people the power to elect their own legislative representatives would encourage good
affections towards the government and would allow the people to have a voice in their
own government. This also supported the idea of the people being the more important
voice in government and having the sovereignty rest in the people instead of the
government.
The executive checked the legislative branch through its veto power. The only
way that the legislative could override the veto was by getting two-thirds vote. The
Virginia Plan had a direct application of the principle of separation of power, which John
Locke had popularized but it was used throughout English history. The idea of having
different branches of government have limits on their power through the other branches
being checks upon them was derived from the theory of mixed governments.294
292
Ibid., 56.
293
The Papers of James Madison Digital Edition, J. C. A. Stagg, editor.
294
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 151-152.
84 Montesquieu, a French political Enlightenment thinker, had the idea of having the three
separate branches of government. Both Locke and Montesquieu were contributors to the
larger philosophical movement, the Enlightenment. James Madison popularized this idea
into new heights by calling it “a first principle of free government.”295
Another significant Federalist who had contributed much to the discussions of the
Constitution was Alexander Hamilton. Along with James Madison and John Jay, he
contributed fifty-one essays to The Federalist Papers, the most significant writings that
thoroughly commented upon and defended aspects of the Constitution. The Federalist
Papers stood as the most prominent Federalist writing and was extensive in its analysis of
the many parts to the Constitution in hopes of convincing more that the Constitution was
the best for the nation.296 Hamilton states in the Federalist No. 1 that the only options
that Americans had was to either have a union or break apart the union. He believed that
the union would be more advantageous to American citizens due to the protection it
would provide against any possible evils.297 This was the main argument of The
Federalist Papers which had simplified the range of the debate on the Constitution to one
simple question.
In The Federalist Papers, Hamilton emphasized how easy it was for man to
succumb to evil tendencies due to the fact that there were a part of man’s human nature.
295
Ibid., 152.
296
Forrest McDonald, “Hamilton, Alexander (1757–1804)”, (Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
Oxford University Press, 2004, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/68602, accessed 12 April 2013).
297
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 1, The Federalist, Edited by Clinton Rossiter, (New York: New
American Library, 1961), 37.
85 He stated in the Federalist No. 6 that “men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious.”298
This got even more problematic when power were given to men. This led to abuse of
power and the infringement upon the rights of others. Hamilton made the argument that
these natural evil tendencies would decrease when separate states were joined into a
union. This would “soften the manners of men” and would force the union to consider
the collective good of all.299 Hamilton affirmed the common belief during the eighteenth
century that one should assume that man could easily be tempted to succumb to their
more selfish desires. He provided the solution to this problem by suggesting that multiple
states come together in leadership. This would force the union to come to a mutual
understanding of what would be the best for the union. It also would provide a way in
which leaders’ powers checked by other leaders in power beside them. These safeguards
protected not only the nation’s best interest but also the people that would live under
these leaders. The constant emphasis on human nature and the fear of a tyrannical ruler
to gain control over all was reminiscent of Whig ideology.300 The basis of many Whig
principles was founded on the idea of the possibility that a corrupt ruler could overtake
the government. Whig ideology tried to prevent this from occurring by emphasizing the
importance of checks and balances and the need for a virtuous ruler.301 There were some
elements of Whig ideology that were in Federalist No. 6.
298
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 6, The Federalist, Edited by Clinton Rossiter, (New York: New
American Library, 1961), 54.
299
Ibid., 56.
300
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 39.
301
Ibid.,18.
86 Hamilton also addressed the fear that many had about the power of the president
as outlined in the Constitution. In the Federalist No. 77, Hamilton outlined how the
checks that placed upon each branch would help decrease the possibility of the President
overtaking the government, regardless of whether or not he was tyrannical.302 For
example, the Senate and the President would have some power over each other in order to
uphold both to the constraints of their power. Hamilton stated in Federalist No. 6 that
“the President would have an improper influence over the Senate, because the Senate
would have the power of restraining him.”303 These checks that placed on every branch
of government were especially important for the executive branch because of the fact that
only one person would rule as President. Hamilton saw dissent against the single
executive not that problematic because of the safeguards that the Constitution had placed
upon the President’s power. In the end of the Federalist No. 77, he reminded his readers
that the President was elected by the electors and would only rule for a term of four
years.304 Having the people elect the President was an example of how the sovereignty
rested in the people. The people had the choice and a voice to choose the best President
who would defend their beliefs and rights. Preference in having sovereignty being in the
people and having a balanced government were both Whig principles.305
In addition to the Federalists, Anti-Federalists also played some role in the
creation of the Constitution. An important leader of the Anti-Federalists was Patrick
Henry. Henry held significant power in Virginia’s legislature and spoke out against the
302
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 77, The Federalist. Edited by Clinton Rossiter, (New York: New
American Library, 1961).
303
Hamilton, Federalist No. 6, The Federalist, Edited by Clinton Rossiter, 460.
304
Hamilton, Federalist No. 77, The Federalist. Edited by Clinton Rossiter.
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 47, 39.
305
87 Constitution, trying to convince his own state to not ratify it.306 After the Convention
sent out the Constitution to the states in 1787, Henry gave two speeches on June 5 and
June 7, 1788. He spoke in front of the Virginia Ratifying Convention to try and convince
everyone at the Convention not to ratify the Constitution.
There were many things that Henry had against the Constitution itself, but one of
the main parts that he spoke against it was that the government outlined in the
Constitution had many similarities with the British monarchial rule that they had been
freed from just over a decade ago.307 He stated that it was not exactly like a monarchy
but he was sure that it was not a republic. He continued in his speech by stating that
under this government, the people’s rights was not secured.308 Doubts in the government
and questioning its motives were similar to the manner of the Whigs. The Whigs
believed that there was a conspiracy in the British government, and Americans had
adopted this attitude as well with their own government.309 Questioning the government
and reacting against was what led Americans to rebel against the British government and
in that same spirit, Henry questioned the motives of this new government. Henry even
made a comparison of the Revolution with this drastic change in government under the
Constitution. “Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great
Britain. It is as radical, if in this transition our rights and privileges are endangered and
the sovereignty of the States to be relinquished: And cannot we plainly see that this is
306
Thomas L. Purvis, ‘Henry, Patrick (1736–1799)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford
University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/61289, accessed 14 April 2013].
307
Patrick Henry, Speeches of Patrick Henry (June 5 and 7, 1788), The Anti-Federalist Papers and the
Constitutional Convention Debates, Edited by Ralph Ketcham, (New York: Signet Classic, 2003), 199.
308
Ibid.
309
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 39.
88 actually the case?”310 Henry compared the fundamental changes that the Constitution
brings to America’s government to the Revolution to emphasize how great these changes
were, and in his opinion, going in the wrong direction.
Another way that Henry believed that the Convention gave the government too
much power was because it would control the militia. If the government infringed upon
the people’s rights, the states would not have any power in resisting against the national
army. He believed that this was too much power given to Congress and government.
The government under the Constitution would be extremely difficult to defend against a
tyrannical government. He greatly emphasized the important of having checks upon the
government because of the possibility of having corruption. This idea of having checks
upon the government because of possible tyranny was similar to Whig ideology.311 A
principle of Whig ideology was to have a check placed upon the ruler because protecting
the rights of the people was of the utmost importance. Henry questioned whether or not
the government considered the people’s rights as important under the Constitution.
Conclusion
The Constitution stood as culmination of the development of revolutionary
political ideology. Throughout the seventeenth century, the colonists were forming their
own ideas of government from reading ancient and Enlightenment theories and
philosophies. John Locke was influential with his ideas of government as shown through
the similarities between his ideas and the Constitution. Other influences of Whig
ideology were also present in the Constitution as well. The idea of proper representation,
310
Henry, Speeches of Patrick Henry, The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Convention
Debates, Edited by Ralph Ketcham, 199-200.
311
Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, 21.
89 sovereignty resting in the people, and separation of powers were all representative of
Whig ideology.
There were many setbacks within the confederacy due to the fact that it could not
properly govern a nation with its given parameters of its power. The Constitution not
only expanded the power of the federal government but it changed the idea of
government once again. With the placement of the three branches of government a
republic was formed and had safeguards placed to allow a strong government to rule with
less chances of a tyrant to take over. The writing of the Constitution was all due to the
Americans’ development of their political ideology. Whig influences showed how much
the Americans valued the importance of protecting the rights of citizens as much as
possible while still having a government in place. Whig ideology was one of the many
influences that were significant in helping Americans to form the best government that
they could conceive for America.
It should be noted that Whig ideology was only one philosophical movement that
influenced the writing of the Constitution. In an in-depth analysis of various primary
sources from the founding era, 1760 to 1805, historian Donald Lutz discovered patterns
of the reading and writing of the various philosophical influencers on American political
thought. Lutz claimed that there was not one prominent intellectual movement that
dominated over others. For example, the Enlightenment and the English Whigs were
equal in their influence over America during the founding era.312 However, the greatest
referred and cited text was the Bible, which meant that it was more widely used in
312
Donald Lutz, "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American
Political Thought," [The American Political Science Review, no. 1 (1984): 189-197], 190.
90 American writings than Whig or Enlightenment thought did.313 Mark Noll stated in
America’s God that Puritan tradition had just as significant influences as the Whig
tradition did.314 These facts help place Whigs in perspective of their importance. While
they did have some clout in the American political conscience that was forming, other
movements such as the European Enlightenment and the Great Awakening had some
impact in addition to Whig ideology.315
Analysis on which political writers that the founding fathers were influenced by
could also help better understand their significance. It seemed that the founding fathers,
such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, were influenced by writers such as Locke,
Montesquieu, and Hume. Other significant political writer such as William Blackstone
and Plutarch were less known and mentioned in modern scholarship but were just as or
even more influential than the popularized John Locke.316 There were many prominent
Whig writers that influenced both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Lutz stated
that “among Whig writers, the Federalists favor Trenchard and Gordon, Temple, and
Sidney, whereas the Anti-Federalists favor Price, Addison, and Trenchard and Gordon
equally.”317 These were only some of the Whig writers that the Federalists and AntiFederalists were using. These findings by Lutz helped put Whig ideology in perspective
and helped better understand its place of influence alongside these other intellectual
movements.
313
Ibid., 192.
314
Mark Noll, America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln, (Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 2002), 32.
315
Ibid., 43.
316
Lutz, "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century American Political
Thought," 193-194.
317
Ibid., 195.
91 CONCLUSION OF THESIS
Whig ideology had an important part in helping shape the American political
ideology during the eighteenth century. Whig ideology can be shown through the views
of significant Whig Party members such as William Atwood, Robert Ferguson, and
Henry Hallam and also other significant political writers such as John Locke, John
Trenchard, and Thomas Gordon. The English Constitution that once ruled Great Britain
was also a fundamental piece of Whig thought during the eighteenth century. The
government under the English constitution was an agreement between the people and its
government that under this constitution the government would protect and respect
people’s rights. While there were some debates on whether or not the English
constitution existed in an unwritten or written form, the Whigs still believed that the
English constitution should rule again because it protected the people’s rights under this
contract between the people and its government. The principles of Whig ideology that
were presented through the ideas of the above mentioned people and included
sovereignty resting in the people, separation of power, virtuous rulers, and protection of
property. Writers would use these ideas in documents such as Treatises of Government
and Cato’s Letters, and these documents were influential in the development of
America’s own political identity.
In the period leading up to the American Revolutionary War, one of the biggest
issues that the colonists had with Parliament was representation. The colonists felt that
since they did not receive direct representation from the government that they were not
subject to paying taxes for the purpose of raising revenue. This spurred on constant
92 fighting between Parliament and the colonies and there were many protests against tariffs
such as the Stamp Act, the Townshend Duties, and the Tea Act. It was this constant
debate that eventually led to actual physical fighting that occurred during the American
Revolutionary War. It was during this time that America started to determine what its
own government would be after they had declared their independence from Great Britain
once and for all. The writing of the Declaration of Independence led to the creation of
the Articles of Confederation, in which the main basis of power rested in the states
because Americans did not trust a strong central government after what they had
experienced under the British government.
However, the Articles of Confederation had many faults and it did not work well
in creating unity among the states. It had little federal power to resolve disputes between
states, raise revenue to pay off debt, and gain international respect. The purpose of the
Philadelphia Convention was to reassess the government system and in the end the
Convention created an entirely new Constitution. It was through this period of creating
the new Constitution that helped develop America’s political ideology. Through the
Constitution, America had indirectly applied many Whig ideas such as separation of
power, sovereignty resting in the people, and the importance of virtue in the government.
The Constitution succeeded in resolving the insufficient powers of the government under
the Articles and managed to protect the sovereignty of the people through the separation
of power through the three branches of government. It was the consideration of the
people and their rights while creating a strong federal government that could protect these
rights that created the Constitution to balance these two principles. Through the writing
of the American Constitution, balance was achieved and it still stands as an example of
93 Whig ideas being indirectly applied into the formation of government that had stood the
test of time today.
94 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, Samuel. "Massachusetts House of Representatives, Circular Letter to the
Colonial Legislatures." The Founder's Constitution. http://presspubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s13.html (accessed November 15,
2012).
The Adoption of the Documents. From the Declaration of Independence to the
Constitution. Edited by Carl Friedrich and Robert McCloskey. New York: The
Liberal Arts Press, 1954.
The American Constitution. From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution.
Edited by Carl Friedrich and Robert McCloskey. New York: The Liberal Arts
Press, 1954.
Articles of Confederation. From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution.
Edited by Carl Friedrich and Robert McCloskey. New York: The Liberal Arts
Press, 1954.
Bailyn, Bernard. The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 1967.
Banning, Lance. “Madison, James (1751–1836)”. Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography. Oxford University Press, 2004,
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/68625.
Brewer, John. Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Bradley, James. Popular Politics and the American Revolution in England: Petitions, the
Crown, and Public Opinion. Macon, Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1986.
Brewer, John. Party Ideology and Popular Politics at the Accession of George III.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976.
Bryan, Samuel. Centinel No. 1. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional
Convention Debates. Edited by Ralph Ketcham. New York: Signet Classic, 2003.
Colbourn, Trevor. The Lamp of Experience: Whig History and the Intellectual Origins of
the American Revolution. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press,
1965.
95 Conway, Stephen. The British Isles and the War of Independence. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Cowie, Leonard. Hanoverian England: 1714-1837. London: G. Bell and Sons, Ltd, 1967.
Derry, John. English Politics and the American Revolution. New York: St. Martin's Press,
1976.
Dickinson, John. Articles of Confederation. Sources and Documents Illustrating the
American Revolution and the Formation of the Federal Constitution. Edited by S.
E. Morison. London: Oxford University Press, 1929.
Dinwiddy, J. R. "Charles James Fox as Historian." Historical Journal 12, no. 1 (March
1969): 23-34. Historical Abstracts, EBSCOhost.
Donoughue, Bernard. British Politics and the American Revolution. New York : St.
Martin's Press, 1964.
Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. "Whig and Tory,"
2012, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/641802/Whig-Party.
Fahey, David. "Henry Hallam: A Conservative as Whig Historian." The Historian 28
(1966): 625-647.
Farrell, S. M. “Wentworth, Charles Watson-, Second Marquess of Rockingham (1730–
1782)”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004;
online edn, Jan 2008, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/28878.
The First Continental Congress, Petition to King George III . "National Humanities
Center.”
http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/makingrev/crisis/text7/petitionkinggeorge
3.pdf (accessed November 16, 2012).
Guttridge, George. English Whiggism and the American Revolution. Berkeley, CA :
University of California Press, 1963.
Ronald Hamowy, ed., Trenchard, John, and Thomas Gordon. Cato's Letters or Essays on
Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects. Indianapolis : Liberty
Fund, 1995.
Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist No. 1. The Federalist. Edited by Clinton Rossiter. New
York: New American Library, 1961.
Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist No. 6. The Federalist. Edited by Clinton Rossiter. New
York: New American Library, 1961.
96 Hamilton, Alexander. Federalist No. 77. The Federalist. Edited by Clinton Rossiter. New
York: New American Library, 1961.
Hamowy, Ronald. "Cato’s Letters, John Locke, and the Republic Paradigm." History of
Political Thought 11, no. 2 (Summer 90 1990): 273-294. Historical Abstracts.
Henry, Patrick. "Virginia Resolves on the Stamp Act, 1765 May 30."
http://www.constitution.org/bcp/vir_res1765.htm.
Henry, Patrick. Speeches of Patrick Henry (June 5 and 7, 1788). The Anti-Federalist
Papers and the Constitutional Convention Debates. Edited by Ralph Ketcham.
New York: Signet Classic, 2003.
Himmelfarb, Gertrude. The Roads to Modernity: The British, French, and American
Enlightenments. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.
Jefferson, Thomas. Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776. Sources and Documents
Illustrating the American Revolution and the Formation of the Federal
Constitution. Edited by S. E. Morison. London: Oxford University Press, 1929.
Ketcham, Ralph. Introduction. The Anti-Federalist Papers and the Constitutional
Convention Debates. Edited by Ralph Ketcham. New York: Signet Classic, 2003.
Lang, Thomas. Hallam, Henry (1777-1859). Oxford Dictionary of National Biography,
http://www.oxforddnb.com.ezproxy.baylor.edu/view/article/12002?docPos=2.
Langford, Paul “Burke, Edmund (1729/30–1797)”, Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Sept 2012
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/4019.
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Alex Catalogue, eBook Collection.
Lockyer, Roger. Tudor and Stuart Britain. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited,
2005.
Lively, Jack, and Adam Lively. Democracy in Britain: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell,
1994.
Lutz, Donald. "The Declaration of Independence as Part of an American National
Compact." Publius. 19. no. 1 (1989): 41-58.
Lutz, Donald. The Origins of American Constitutionalism. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana
State University Press, 1988.
97 Lutz, Donald. "The Relative Influence of European Writers on Late Eighteenth-Century
American Political Thought." The American Political Science Review. no. 1
(1984): 189-197.
Madison, James. Constitution of the United States: Sources and Documents Illustrating
the American Revolution and the Formation of the Federal Constitution. Edited
by S. E. Morison. London: Oxford University Press, 1929.
Madison, James. No. 10. The Federalist. Edited by Clinton Rossiter. New York: New
American Library, 1961.
Madison, James. Federalist No. 51. The Federalist. Edited by Clinton Rossiter. New
York: New American Library, 1961.
Madison, James. The Virginia Plan as Reported by the Committee of the Whole. From the
Declaration of Independence to the Constitution. Edited by Carl Friedrich and
Robert McCloskey. New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1954.
Maier, Pauline. From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development
of American Opposition to Britain, 1765-1776. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company, 1991.
McDonald, Forrest. “Hamilton, Alexander (1757–1804)”, Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004,
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/68602, accessed 12 April 2013.
Miller, John. Origins of the American Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1943.
Milton, J. R. "Locke, John (1632-1704)." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/1688.
Mitchell, Leslie. The Whig World: 1760-1837. New York: Continuum International
Publishing Group, 2006.
Mitchell, L. G. “Fox, Charles James (1749–1806)”, Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Oct 2007
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/10024.
Noll, Mark. America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2002.
Paine, Thomas. Common Sense. Collected Writings. Edited by Eric Foner. New York:
The Library of America, 1995.
Paine. "Democracy in Britain, A Reader." There is No English Constitution (1791),
Edited by Jack Lively and Adam Lively, 11-12. Oxford: Blackwell, 1791.
98 The Papers of James Madison Digital Edition, J. C. A. Stagg, editor. Charlottesville:
University of Virginia Press, Rotunda, 2010.
Purvis, Thomas L. “Henry, Patrick (1736–1799)”. Oxford Dictionary of National
Biography. Oxford University Press. 2004
[http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/61289, accessed 14 April 2013].
Robbins, Caroline. The Eighteenth-century Commonwealthman: Studies in the
Transmission, Development and Circumstance of English Liberal Thought from
the Restoration of Charles II until the War with the Thirteen Colonies. New York:
Atheneum, 1968.
Rokeby, Matthew Robinson-Morris. "Considerations on the measures carrying on with
respect to the British colonies in North-America," 1774.
Smith, E. A. Whig Principles and Party Politics: Earl Fitzwilliam and the Whig Party,
1748-1833. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. 1975, 43.
Thompson, Martyn P. "The Reception of Locke’s Two Treatises on Government, 16901705." Political Studies 24, no. 2 (June 1976): 184-191. Historical Abstracts.
Trenchard, John, and Thomas Gordon. Cato's Letters. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Fund,
1995.
Williams, Basil. The Whig Supremacy, 1714-1760. London: Oxford University Press,
1962.
Williamson, Hugh. "The plea of the colonies on the charges brought against them by
Lord Mansfield, and others, in a letter to His Lordship. By a native of
Pennsylvania." 1777.
Wood, Gordon. The American Revolution. New York: The Modern Library, 2002.
Wood, Gordon. The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787. Chapel Hill, NC:
The University of North Carolina Press, 1969.
Wood, Gordon. The Making of the Constitution. Waco, TX: Markham Press Fund, 1987.
Wood, Gordon. Preface. Liberty, Property, and the Foundations of the American
Constitution. Edited by Ellen Frankel Paul and Howard Dickman. New York:
State University of New York Press, 1989.
Wood , Gordon. The Radicalism of the American Revolution. New York: Vintage Books,
1991.
99 Zook, Melinda. "Atwood, William (d. 1712)." Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.
http://www.oxforddnb.com.ezproxy.baylor.edu/view/article/884?docPos=1
(accessed October 22, 2012).
Zook, Melinda. Radical Whigs and Conspiratorial Politics in Late Stuart England.
University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1999.
100