The “Expiring Faction”—A Parallel of the Sons of Liberty and the Tea Party
By Guest Post | Monday, August 8th, 2011 | History, PoliticsGuest post by Andrew Schwartz
In the 1760s, the American Revolution was born. They didn’t know it yet, but the colonists residing throughout the American continent would put forth arguments during this time that would ultimately demand nothing less than independence from a deaf and obstinate government. Massachusetts was at the beginning the liveliest ground for political polemics and social reasoning. Because of their Puritan background, they were the best educated among Americans; they were the most political; and they were the most philosophical—endeavoring when prompted to discover the roots and premises of liberty, tyranny, and everything in between. And they were radicals.
But before we use that term with accusation or exaltation, or as an excuse to emulate or dismiss them, we must understand the meaning; for it is very recent that “radical” has gained a negative connotation. Its original meaning is not to seek far-reaching change through extreme measures. No, its proper definition for the Revolutionary American was to seek restoration to original principles.
The English had been famous for their radicalism, especially in the reigns of Charles I (reigned 1625-1649) and James II (reigned 1685-1688). In both periods, the English forced their sovereign from the seat of sovereignty, the former by execution and the latter by expulsion. And after both periods, the people and the lords sought to restore their original rights, as they understood them. Their argument was not to seek or claim new rights. Thus it was also for the colonists prior to the Declaration of Independence.
Massachusetts was the most vocal of the colonists, and the most provoking to authority—a well-educated populace is always a danger to arbitrary government. But in the 1760s they did not demand absolute freedom of press or religion; they did not demand social justice; they did not demand a supervised equality; they did not demand a laissez faire economy; they didn’t even demand independence. Their demands were conservative in nature—to restore and preserve the rights and liberties upon which their society was based. They voraciously studied political thought, legal commentaries, and, of course, the British constitution.
Samuel Adams, in 1765, wrote to a friend, “The British Constitution is founded in the Principles of Nature and Reason—it admits of no more Power over the Subject than is necessary for the Support of Government which was originally designed for the Preservation of the unalienable Rights of Nature.” In June of 1769, the Massachusetts House of Representatives expressed to their governor, “No time can better be employed, than in the preservation of the rights derived from the British constitution…. No treasure can be better expended, than in securing that true old English liberty, which gives a relish to every other enjoyment.”
There are countless other examples showing the Revolutionaries going back to the British constitution to advance their arguments against oppression, increased governmental power, an expanding bureaucracy, and a usurpation of original authority. In this sense, it was not a resistance to Great Britain—for they still held their king in the highest reverence, and believed he could do no wrong. It was, instead, a resistance to a government that insisted upon exceeding its constitutional authority.
The loyalists in Massachusetts, led by Governor Bernard, did everything in his power to marginalize these constitutionalists. This was his ultimate undoing. He first attempted to dismiss them as irrelevant, as a tiny fraction of the population. When this did not work, he admitted their temporary influence, but called them an “expiring faction,” who were not qualified and would tire of political discourse. These measures only invigorated their cause and influence, and Bernard next accused them of being extremists “upon the eve of an insurrection.” (It must be emphasized that all characterizations were either patently false or grossly misrepresented, and this was even admitted by various influential loyalists.)
It was suspected that Governor Bernard, and many in the British Ministry, were jealous of the wealth and fortune that Americans had accrued, and it was for these reasons, they believed, that direct taxes were levied upon them—taxes that were proscribed in such a manner that left little choice to the colonists, especially the affluent, how a portion of his property was employed. But their progressive strain was not only limited to extracting money from the wealthier class. They also had designs to increase their own power and control the population. Governor Bernard confided his opinion of the Massachusetts constitution, which, incidentally, was issued and confirmed by the king: “the appointment of the Council is left to the people, to be made by annual election; and yet the Royal Governor…is subject to the controul of the Democratic Council. This…has been as hurtful in practice as it is absurd in theory, and it is the true cause of the extreme [impotence] in this government, at times when the exertion of it is most wanted.” Bernard did not believe Locke’s theory of the consent of the governed; he believed it was better to dictate to these colonists how to live their lives and spend their money.
Like the Tea Party today, the Sons of Liberty at our country’s birth were the bastions of conservatism, at all points desiring to return to the glories of their constitution. And like the Tea Party today, they were defamed, marginalized, dismissed as irrelevant, and characterized by a liberal and elite class, as terrorists. But they persevered; they did not falter; they did not compromise their principles. They continued to demand of their government the protection of their rights—not new rights they felt they should have, but those rights that had been historically preserved by their royal government—life, liberty, and property.
When all levels of government refused to protect these British liberties and constitutional rights, only then did cries for independence come.
*****
Andrew Schwartz is a United States Marine, and a graduate of Old Dominion University with a Bachelor’s Degree (Summa Cum Laude) in History, and focuses on Colonial and Early American Political and Intellectual History. He has written for various blogs and newspapers on historical and political matters for about five years.
Tags:
Contribute for Conservatism!
We're 75% there! Thank you to everyone who has so far contributed! Just $2000 to go!
Comments
11 Responses to "The “Expiring Faction”—A Parallel of the Sons of Liberty and the Tea Party"
Well done, Andrew.
Thank you, Karen. I hope this will in some small way encourage those who have become pessimistic about their prospects. Thank you for all you have done for the Hampton Roads Tea Party and the Virginia Tea Party Alliance.
…and so the actions of the American revolutionaries — in defense of the British constitution and common law — was to perform an extra-constitutional act?
Fascinating history Andrew, and I entirely empathize with the point you are trying to make. But it is factually incorrect to argue that the American revolution was a submission to the British understanding of law. Rather, it was in all aspects a revolution that included the very best of the Scottish, British, and American enlightenment combined with the qualities of the American character at the time — wholly new, and wholly a rejection of the British constitution.
Still, I admire the sentiment.
“The English had been famous for their radicalism, especially in the reigns of Charles I (reigned 1625-1649) and James II (reigned 1685-1688). In both periods, the English forced their sovereign from the seat of sovereignty, the former by execution and the latter by expulsion. And after both periods, the people and the lords sought to restore their original rights, as they understood them.”
If I may chime in, I doubt Oliver Cromwell, murder and pillager of Ireland, authoritarian dictator, and banner of most public forms of merriment qualifies as a “restorer of their original rights” or a good example of “radicalism”. There’s a reason that the Brits decided to reverse Cromwell’s success after his death and restore the monarchy under Charles II. That seems to be a very merry picture of a very brutal regime. Then again, I’m sure Chomsky has revisioned Stalin by now.
While you’re correct in saying that radicalism has played a major role in World History, most periods of strong radicalism are followed by intense periods of moderation. The Restoration after Cromwell and the Roundheads. The Thermidorian Reaction after Robespierre and the Reign of Terror in France. Even in America, Washington’s suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion illustrates an era of moderation in contrast to the Revolution. There not necessarily entire rejections of the original principles that had been promised by periods of radicalism, but simply that radicalism fills niche society has created in their opposition, yet which often over-delivers past a relative balance of power.
I say this not in antagonism to the Tea Party, but that “radicals” are often found on the extreme of the balance preferred by the majority. Perhaps that is also a lesson which will be studied as the Tea Party grows more and more mainstream and inevitably has to become a Governing party and not simply a protest one.
A good read, nonetheless. Perhaps we live in a time well-suited for temporary radicalism based on our current situations.
Shaun, while the American Revolution RESULTED in a wholly new system–that did reject significant portions of the British constitution–it did not begin that way, especially in the 1760s, the time in question. Nearly every argument made during this time was based on Lord Coke and Blackstone, the acknowledged authorities on constitutional law, and Britain’s own legal precedents. They were not opposed to Parliament, and they were certainly still made every effort to demonstrate loyalty to his Majesty. In their terms, they were opposed to the “operation of the Acts,” and they made significant efforts to ensure that the king’s ministers were advising him properly on the British constitution. The king, however, could still do no wrong.
Venu Kata, you are correct about the traditional British rights during the Protectorate. However, it was not my intent to portray Cromwell as a restorer of liberties; but the people and the lords did make great efforts to do so upon his death and in the Restoration. Still, the definition of “radical” needs to be remembered: as it applies here, it does not mean abrupt or far-reaching change necessarily, but simply a return to fundamentals and roots. The word now has somewhat negative connotations, and causes people to infer NEW philosophies, which I understand, but its literal meaning is still based on a return to origins. American Radicalism in the 1760s did not promise rejections; it fought for preserving what was being rejected.
I would urge anyone who believes that the Revolution was from its outset a rejection of all-things monarchy to read the writings of Samuel Adams, John Adams, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, the countless anonymous articles in the Boston Gazette, and the countless anonymous pamphlets that were published in the 1760s, all arguing for a restoration of traditional liberties, not demanding new ones. A very good treatment of this subject is Bernard Bailyn, “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.”
There were “liberals” or “classical liberals,” however you wish to describe them, in the foundations of our country, and they would be very influential–Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin (whose ideas evolved significantly during his life) to name a few–but aside from the latter, their influence on the Revolution was comparatively late.
Shaun, I missed your first point in my response. The first “extra-constitutional” act that the American colonists did as a whole was the Declaration of Independence.
Now, I know there are many examples of illegal (and therefore, extra-constitutional) acts that citizens did privately to rebel against their authority. But publicly, that is, the representatives through their established governments, they endeavored to follow the law. Certainly there were some public officials that participated in illegal activities, but only while they were acting as private citizens (the separation between the two was more accepted then). The actions of “the people,” as expressed through their government, was wholly constitutional. And it was not just the Americans that believed so. Eminent statesmen in Britain shared their views, as well as much of the population there.
Their decision to commit treason against their sovereign–upon penalty of being drawn and quartered, disemboweled, and decapitated (women, for modesty’s sake, would be burned at the stake)–was not at all popular at the outset of American discontent. They therefore pursued legal and constitutional measure to redress their grievances, and to restore the liberties they enjoyed under William and Mary, and the earlier Hanovers. Brendan McConville, “The King’s Three Faces” makes some interesting points on this matter, although I do not agree with all of his interpretations.
The whole premise of this article is wrong as explained in Wikipedia. There never was a British Constitution. I quote from Wikipedia; “The History of the Constitution of the United Kingdom is a story that begins before the creation of the United Kingdom itself and continues to the present day. The UK constitution is not in a single, written document, but is drawn from legislation, treaties, judicial precedents, convention, and numerous other sources. Our Constitution plus the Bill of Rights was the first doctrine that guaranteed the rights of it citizens. When the Constitution was written Britain was a Monarchy.
Louis, please do not consider that a “constitution” must be exactly like ours, that is, a singular written document. Our great Constitution forever altered the connotations of that word, but prior to that, a country’s constitution was its system of law, precedent, legal and social philosophy, and overall its method of preserving its own existence.
If you would like a more in-depth description of the ideas of political constitutions I would be more than happy to oblige, but please do not reject a premise simply because a 30-second search on Wikipedia has presented a seeming contradiction in terms. And our Constitution was not the first document to present such a guarantee. Great Britain (and England prior to the unification) was notorious for enumerating rights.
(Actually, our Constitution makes no guarantee of rights, other than those that shall be enjoyed while under the arrest of the government; more specifically, it prohibits Congress from interfering with rights that cannot be proffered, only protected: expression, self-preservation, autonomy, and sovereignty in all things not expressly delegated to political authority. These rights are inherent, and therefore cannot be bestowed by a guarantor, lest that guarantor suddenly presume he may take them away.)
What? An article favorable to the Tea Party?
Yes, it is hard to conceive of anyone thinking that the brinksmanship of the Tea Party and the support they received form the Republican Study Committee could in anyway be construed as positive for americans. Afterall, in the reprt from S&P announcing he downgrade of our debt, the focus was as follows: “United States of America Long-Term Rating Lowered To ‘AA+’ On Political Risks and Rising Debt Burden”. So while our economy is not yet fully recovered, and their are headwinds in front of us, the reason they lowered the debt rating was political; that is, the inability of the Congress to compromise on a package of budget cuts, revenue increases, tax reform, and reform of entitlements. That is the only way to reduce the deficit and the debt in a way that allows GDP to increase. The intrasigence of the republicans is ruining our economy.
But Mike, evidently Republicans don’t like Tea Partiers. You see that a lot on this blog. You disagree with them and you disagree with us. What is one to think?
And are we some uber powerful group capable of forcing what ever you claim the Tea Party forced in that deal, or are the Tea Party a bunch of kooky witless malcontent fringe nuts incapable of organizing our way out of a paper bag. I hear both versions from the Left and establishment Republicans. Which is it. It can’t be both.
If the Tea Party got their way we wouldn’t be waiting YEARS before any real cuts were made. How do you reconcile that with the terrible deal that Tim Kaine PRAISED. Well……he was for it before he was against it. Now the downgrade he said wouldn’t happen did and now he contradicts himself saying the downgrade was “predictable”!
Just how do you saddle the Tea Party that openly opposed the deal with the deal when it was YOUR guys applauding it?
Leave your response