Today citizens of the United States
associate themselves with the great country in which they dwell. In the colonial times, specifically 1763 –
1776, a colonial would most often associate himself with British Empire, and
secondly as a Virginian, New Yorker, etc.[1] In a macro view of the colonies, the persons
abiding in the colony were viewed alike, but in a micro view, there are
distinct differences between classes. As
the tensions between England and the American Colonies increased in the 20
years leading up to the Declaration of Independence, the relations between
Elite and Non-Elite evolved among social and political change.
The foreboding political questions and
grievances started rising faster after the 1760’s. Political tensions rose with the debates over
Parliament Supremacy or local colonial legislatures. “There cannot be two rights existing in
government at the same time.”[2]
Though these tensions did exist, the overwhelming majority of the colonist
still enjoyed what they had with the British constitution. John Adams writes,
“Were I to define the British Constitution, therefore,
I should say, it is a limited monarchy, or a mixture of the three forms of
government commonly known in the schools, reserving as much of the monarchical
splendor the aristocratic independency, and the democratic freedom, as are
necessary that each of these powers may have control, both in legislation and
execution, over the other two, for the preservation of the subject’s liberty…” [3]
When
Adams referred to the British constitution he was not referring to one specific
document, but he was referring to multiple documents, laws, and customs.[4]
All the English had were precedents: their constitutional law operated exactly
like their common law, organically.[5]
John Adams is clear about two things in his essay John Adams on the British Constitution (1766): Colonist knew it and
understood it; the British Constitution, if used properly, was the best form of
government.[6]
Using this outstanding form of
government, the colonial legislatures were modeled after Parliament. Each legislature would have an Upper House
and Lower House. The majority of the
Legislatures had an Upper House whose seats were filled by appointees of the
Governor. The Lower House had elected
officials from the surrounding populace.
There are a few crucial differences
between the colonial assemblies and Parliament.
The colonial assemblies had written constitutions.[7]
Power of the purse means that any bills relating to money, whether it is
taxation or the use of money collected through taxes, must originate in the
Lower House. Initially, the Governor and
the Upper House directed the legislature politically, but by the 1770’s the
Lower House of all colonial assemblies ceased control of the entire legislative
body. This control is speaking of a
group of men who controlled the direction of the body, and did not cater to
outside Empire influences. They ordered
their own business, held elections, directed their London agents, and
controlled the release of the news to the press.[8]
The men who filled both houses were of the elite of society.
What categorized a man as the elite of society? As Satirist James Reid said, “Money, Negroes,
and Land enough” made man part of the gentry.
The amount of land owned was not the only factor in one’s status, but
the type of the land as well. In essence
each man of property competed with other men of property to gain capital, labor
and land.[9]
The gentry were considered by many to be a “proud and optimistic ruling class”.[10]
The men elected to the Assemblies in the South and those “who took a leading
legislative and executive part”, were vaguely gentry. [11]
Paul Johnson writes, They were fluent orators, by virtue of their education,
and spoke the language of political discourse ... Lesser men proud to call
themselves ‘free-born Americans, ‘ looked up to them. The importance of this relation to the
“lesser men” is vital because it gave the gentry a sense of connection to the
people. The connection declared those
immortal words “that government of the
people, by the people, for the people,” even before they were spoken. The political elite had a self-confidence
that they spoke for the people.[12]
The gentry needed to have this connect because they felt they had an obligation
to be benevolent to those less fortunate.
The less fortunate on the other hand was expected to respect and honor
the more wealthy gentry. They are also
expected to vote for them to put them in a seat of the House of Burgesses (or
whatever the colonial legislature was called).
This mutual understanding is common throughout the colonies.
Many would have us believe that the “proud
and optimistic ruling class” that gave us George Washington and Thomas
Jefferson made the step toward independence of their own fruition. When, in fact, as Woody Holton writes that it
was the poor farmers or less fortunate peoples who were the catalyst for the
independence movement.
Holton points out two main issues that
pushed the gentry toward independence. These two main issues deal with the relations
between the elite of society and with smallholders. First is a commerce issue and secondly, the control
of the population. The non importation
and non exportation virtually stopped all commerce which led to shortages and
riots.[13]
These riots were, at times, hard to manage.
The suggestion at the Virginia Convention to “make such an establishment,
as will put a stop to the rising disorders” shows the desperation of the
gentry.[14]
A new government establishment, in this case, would allow the gentry to control
the population while allowing commerce to continue by establishing trade
connections with other sovereign countries, but in order to accomplish this,
the elites would have to declare independence from Britain.
The problems in Virginia and elsewhere in
the colonies emerged from a growing class awareness.[15] For example, the gentry in Virginia tried to
resolve the issues with the Independent Companies with the concept of minutemen
battalions. In the gentry’s mind,
minutemen battalions was a good resolution, but in keeping such a force
demanded a lot from its recruits. “New
recruits had to leave their homes for twenty days of training; after that,
minutemen had to train for another twenty-four days each year.”[16]
This type of service hindered a man’s ability to be productive in his own
business. Neglecting one’s trade for such periods would be detrimental.
Tensions grew out of the shortages. The
first commodity to cease supply was salt. Colonial leaders attempted to appease
the masses by instructing them that it was healthier to eat food without salt. [17]This
did not appease the masses, and there were riots. Though these shortages brought about civil
unrest and riots, the less fortunate pushed forward the ideals of the most
radical. Both letters from the Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania
(1767-1768) are clear in their tone.
The farmer in a lower class sees that his rights as an Englishman could
be taken away with one Act. He, like
many other farmers are like-minded in the end goal, though for a different
reason.
The relations between the ruling gentry and the
less fortunate were tense, but the two classes were of the same mind. The actions of the gentry were in the right
mind set. They were doing what is best
for the country, and at the point in history, what was good for the country was
profitable for the gentry. The catalyst
for independence was the fear of civil disorder and the
continuance of capital (money, land and slaves).
[1]
Cynthia Kierner, ed, Revolutionary
America, 1750-1815: Sources and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 2003), 10, 11
[2]
“The Supremacy of Parliament,”1766, in Cynthia Kierner, ed, Revolutionary America, 1750-1815: Sources
and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2003), 26
[3]
“John Adams on the British Constitution” 1766, in Cynthia Kierner, ed, Revolutionary America, 1750-1815: Sources
and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2003), 25
[4]
Cynthia Kierner, ed, Revolutionary
America, 1750-1815: Sources and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 2003), 4
[5]
Paul Johnson A History of the American
People 105
[6]
Cynthia Kierner, ed, Revolutionary
America, 1750-1815: Sources and Interpretation (Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice Hall, 2003), 24, 25
[7]
Paul Johnson A History of the American
People 105
[8]
Ibid 106
[9]
Woody Holton, Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia
[10]
Ibid., i
[11]
Paul Johnson, A History of the American
People (HarperPrerennial Publishers, New York, 1997), 107
[12]
Ibid 107
[13]
Woody Holton, Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the Making of the American Revolution in Virginia
[14]
Ibid., 164
[15]
Ibid., 168
[16] Woody Holton, Forced Founders: Indians, Debtors, Slaves, and the
Making of the American Revolution in Virginia
[17] Ibid., 173
