Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

The Radical Reader: A Documentary History of the American Radical Tradition
The Radical Reader: A Documentary History of the American Radical Tradition
The Radical Reader: A Documentary History of the American Radical Tradition
Ebook1,032 pages19 hours

The Radical Reader: A Documentary History of the American Radical Tradition

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars

()

Read preview

About this ebook

Radicalism is as American as apple pie. One can scarcely imagine what American society would look like without the abolitionists, feminists, socialists, union organizers, civil-rights workers, gay and lesbian activists, and environmentalists who have fought stubbornly to breathe life into the promises of freedom and equality that lie at the heart of American democracy.

The first anthology of its kind, The Radical Reader brings together more than 200 primary documents in a comprehensive collection of the writings of America's native radical tradition. Spanning the time from the colonial period to the twenty-first century, the documents have been drawn from a wealth of sources—speeches, manifestos, newspaper editorials, literature, pamphlets, and private letters. From Thomas Paine's “Common Sense” to Kate Millett's “Sexual Politics,” these are the documents that sparked, guided, and distilled the most influential movements in American history. Brief introductory essays by the editors provide a rich biographical and historical context for each selection included.
LanguageEnglish
PublisherThe New Press
Release dateMay 10, 2011
ISBN9781595587428
The Radical Reader: A Documentary History of the American Radical Tradition
Author

Eric Foner

Eric Foner is DeWitt Clinton Professor of History at Columbia University and the author of several books. In 2006 he received the Presidential Award for Outstanding Teaching at Columbia University. He has served as president of the Organization of American Historians, the American Historical Association, and the Society of American Historians. He lives in New York City.

Read more from Eric Foner

Related to The Radical Reader

Related ebooks

United States History For You

View More

Related articles

Reviews for The Radical Reader

Rating: 0 out of 5 stars
0 ratings

0 ratings0 reviews

What did you think?

Tap to rate

Review must be at least 10 words

    Book preview

    The Radical Reader - Eric Foner

    INTRODUCTION

    Timothy Patrick McCarthy and John McMillian

    Ernest Hemingway once wrote, the dignity . . . of an iceberg is due to only one eighth of it being above water, while the rest remains submerged, invisible to the naked eye. Something of the same might be said for radicalism in American history. Although it’s true that social conservatives commonly complain that historians take an excessively critical view of the American past, it bears remembering that this is a fairly recent charge. Throughout the nineteenth and for most of the twentieth century, the story of America was almost invariably told with tremendous sympathy for the perspectives of great men—political elites, captains of industry, and military heroes—who, admittedly, have done much to shape the world in which we live. The courage and wisdom of American leaders, the steady march of progress they engendered, and the triumph of democratic ideals like freedom, equality, opportunity, and prosperity—these were the predominate themes of American history.

    But we have since learned that this was only the picturesque tip of the iceberg. If one delves below the surface for a closer look, a different story of America becomes visible. As the momentous social upheavals of the 1960s and 1970s reordered American life and promoted new modes of intellectual inquiry, revisionist scholars began taking into account the lives of ordinary people—slaves and freedmen, indentured servants, housewives, workers, children, Native Americans, immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other Americans who had long been ignored. But these scholars did much more than just uncover a broader range of human experience; they also experimented with new interpretive paradigms. Thirty years ago it was virtually unheard of for historians to showcase a sophisticated awareness of the ways that race, class, gender, and sexuality have shaped the lives of all Americans. Today, it is almost commonplace. And as they expanded their field of inquiry and sharpened their intellectual tools, they also began investigating alternative expressions of democracy—the sundry forms of protest and dissent that have challenged the exclusions and inequalities that have always existed. The result? An overdue recognition that many of the most cherished ideals of American history have been hard fought for and hard won by people who otherwise would have been excluded from the democratic promise. Perhaps the crowning achievement of this last generation of scholarship has been the realization that democracy, indeed a wonderful thing, is neither easy nor inevitable.

    I.

    I find it hard to imagine that there’s a story more wonderful than being driven by the desire to worship freely, to set off across the ocean, to make a home out of this wild and inhospitable land.

    —LYNNE CHENEY

    Is there any truth to the conservative charge that today’s historians are too quick to glorify the oppressed? Not unlike the golfer who tries to correct a heavy right hand by pulling too hard with the left, do contemporary historians focus too much attention on cultural difference, social division, protest, and dissent? Are we so somber, gloomy, and pride-starved that we’ve lost sight of all that is good about the United States, and all that is promising about American democracy?

    We think not. Although it may be the case that Americans are becoming more aware of the contributions of individual activists (Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks, and Martin Luther King, Jr., come to mind), the traditions of radicalism that gave these men and women a context—a history, as it were—are poorly understood. In celebrating a roster of individual achievement, we have stripped them of their more ordinary frames of reference, and isolated them from the movements that made them. Cultural warriors like Lynne Cheney are certainly within their right to lament the fact that so few high school seniors know when the Mayflower Compact was signed, where the Battle of the Bulge was fought, and who commanded the troops at Yorktown. But if these pundits really want to get worked up over deficiencies in our historical literacy, they might also consider asking students to identify when the abolitionist movement began, who the Populists were, or what the New Left accomplished. Bluntly put, most Americans are unaware of the dramatic ways that radicalism has shaped the history of the republic. More depressing still, whenever the achievements of progressive social movements are recognized, as with the civil rights and feminist revolutions, many of the most important gains of these struggles—such as affirmative action and reproductive choice—are often the target of disingenuous assault from those who claim to respect their legacies. Viewed in this light, the need for a greater understanding of American radical traditions seems more pressing than ever.

    However, serious obstacles await those who would make American radical history more accessible to the general public. The first is a problem of terminology. Radical has always been an elusive adjective—a contested and fluid concept that owes no allegiance to any particular movement, ideology, or period. Radicalism must always be understood, therefore, within specific historical contexts. It is also a painfully subjective concept: One person’s radicalism is often another person’s reform. In some circles, radical is a term of endearment; more often, it is an epithet. Some historical figures have embodied both radical and conservative traits simultaneously. What is considered radical at one moment in history may well be judged by later generations as reasonable, obvious, and even just.

    Eugene Debs understood this perfectly. In his final statement to the jury that convicted him of sedition during World War I, he noted that Americans are quick to forget that their own founding fathers—George Washington, Samuel Adams, and Thomas Paine—were the rebels of their day. Likewise, Debs noted that abolitionists and woman’s rights activists were maligned as infidels and monsters of depravity while they were alive, but only a few generations later, the best citizens of his generation had already begun teaching children to revere their memories.

    To cite another example: Today, every state in the Union pays annual tribute to Martin Luther King, Jr. Not a January passes that we are not reminded, in schools, on op-ed pages, and even in television advertisements, that King devoted the best years of his life to nonviolence and civil rights. At this very moment, Dr. King’s portrait hangs proudly in the Bush White House. But how much do students know about the popular resistance and government repression that King faced while he was still alive, or the thorny questions he raised about American materialism, militarism, and classism? Who recalls that even as King was doing his good work, federal agents worked behind the scenes to smear him, tapping his phones, sending him threatening mail, and trying to discredit him among journalists, donors, and supporters? Perhaps an even more ironic example of shifting perceptions about radicalism was the 1999 issuing of a U.S. postage stamp commemorating Malcolm X, a man who once demanded total liberty for black people still in chains or total destruction for white America (and who probably could not have mailed a letter in his day without FBI surveillance).

    Official hostility to radicalism can also complicate the efforts of scholars who write about American social movements. Early woman’s rights activists were called hysterical and were banned from public speaking when they challenged the structures of patriarchy that governed their lives. Abolitionists faced violent mobs and hostile legislators who interfered with their mail and destroyed their presses. In 1836, legislators even tried to foil their efforts by passing a comprehensive gag rule that prohibited any discussions of slavery on the floor of Congress. In the fallout from the Haymarket affair in 1886, workers and union leaders faced frequent raids of their homes and headquarters, answered the spurious charges of law enforcement, and suffered from histrionic newspaper editors who called them anarchist serpents and the offscourings of Europe. Radical opposition to American entry in World War I led to a slew of Espionage and Sedition Acts that criminalized antiwar behavior and inspired waves of extralegal vigilantism, culminating in the notorious Palmer Raids and the mass arrests of thousands of so-called aliens. Likewise, the McCarthy crusade of the Cold War era gave officials carte blanche to traduce the First Amendment and engineer the harassment and destruction of thousands of law-abiding citizens who were deemed politically undesirable. And even as we are sending this book into production, official intolerance of dissent has raised its ugly head yet again. In the wake of the horrible attacks on September 11, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer warned that all Americans . . . need to watch what they say. Likewise, Attorney General John Ashcroft told the Senate on December 6, 2001, that those who dared to speak out against the erosion of civil liberties that followed the attacks only aid terrorists and give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends. In other words, Ashcroft believes that his critics are traitors. In this climate, it is a wonder that radicals are ever taught or studied at all.

    Historian Alan Brinkley has identified yet another hurdle for those who seek to make radical history available to a wider public. Although recent scholarship has dismantled the comfortable myths with which some (perhaps most) Americans viewed history, Brinkley notes that in the process, the public has turned to other, nonacademic writers whose work is less discomfiting to them. Indeed, even though a recent Journal of American History poll showed that a majority of scholars and students think that history should challenge our preconceptions and assumptions, many Americans seem to prefer palliative history that reinforces the triumphant narrative in which they have always wanted to believe. Conservative pundit George Will has recently made exactly this point, citing the runaway success of David McCullough’s biography of John Adams as evidence suggesting there is an unquenchable hunger for the telling of America’s story by focusing on great individuals.

    Finally, scholars who promote a broader understanding of radicalism must take care not to romanticize their subject matter. The victimized and the oppressed hardly have a monopoly on virtue and character, and we all know that American protest movements have made their share of mistakes. Indeed, the historical enterprise suffers when scholars form an excessive identification with their topic, or when they mimic the shortcomings of traditional scholarship by reducing the field to a pantheon of heroic individuals to be admired or emulated.

    II.

    The idea for this anthology came out of our experience as graduate teaching assistants for Eric Foner’s course, The American Radical Tradition, at Columbia University during the 1990s. During our weekly discussion sections, we were delighted at how enthusiastically our students responded to the primary source material we passed out. Throughout the semester, we saw history come alive through the speeches and writings of radicals from the American Revolution to the Civil Rights Movement. The more we turned to primary source material in our lesson plans, the more interested and engaged our students became. They started asking tougher questions—of American history, of contemporary society, and ultimately, of us. As a result, they became better students, and we became better teachers. And we’d like to think that we all became better citizens.

    At the semester’s end, our desks and files were cluttered with photocopied documents that covered the spectrum of American radicalism, and as historians are wont to do, we gathered them together, arranged them in some semblance of order, and stored them away in the event that they might prove useful in the classroom again. At first, we simply thought we were doing a little spring cleaning. Later, we realized that all of the unwieldy material we’d accumulated was the beginning of a book.

    Understanding that we could fill a dozen volumes like this one without ever repeating ourselves, we kept in mind several criteria when selecting documents. First, we are interested in chronicling progressive traditions of radicalism—that is, radicalism that primarily emphasizes inclusion and redistribution, and that seeks to expand existing definitions of freedom, equality, justice, and opportunity. Certainly, there is sufficient material (and undoubtedly a large market) to warrant a book on conservative, right-wing, or reactionary radicalism. We leave that enterprise to someone else.

    Another criterion for inclusion was representativeness in terms of content and form. With varying success, we have tried to include documents that showcase the diversity of progressive radicalism. Moreover, although we have included some major texts—very famous works from the likes of Thomas Paine, Frederick Douglass, Henry David Thoreau, and Betty Friedan—we have also reprinted more obscure material, from lesser known authors whose writings might otherwise remain unavailable. Thus we include documents from small magazines, defunct or underground newspapers, out-of-print memoirs, even the Internet. However, regardless of the source of the document, readability was also a factor. Admittedly, not all American radicals are graceful prose stylists, and some of these pieces are considerably more eloquent than others. Nevertheless, we hope our readers will find all of them illuminating and accessible.

    Lastly, in an effort to provide historical context, we have mostly selected documents that have some connection to larger social movements or major trends—civil rights, feminism, critique of capitalism, concern for land and nature, and so on. However, there are a few pieces, like Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Self Reliance and Henry David Thoreau’s Walden, that are not immediately tied to mass mobilizations but are important because they helped inform and inspire future movements. We have also included several traditional documents, such as the Bill of Rights, the Reconstruction Amendments, and Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, to demonstrate that there have been a number of occasions in American history when mainstream figures and institutions have embodied the very best progressive ideals.

    The book’s design serves several purposes. First, in order to emphasize the relationship between radicals and the broader movements for change in which they operate, we have organized the documents into eleven sections, arranged in loose chronological order: American Revolution; Utopian Visions; Abolitionism; Suffrage and Feminism; Land and Labor; Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism; New Negro to Black Power; Modern Feminism; The New Left and Counterculture; Radical Environmentalism; and Queer Liberation. An epilogue contains several documents that may, we think, represent new directions in American radicalism as we begin the twenty-first century. We should note, however, that some of the documents in this collection could fall under multiple chapters, and our decision about where to place them, while certainly not arbitrary, might still provoke minor disagreement. For example, Harriet Jacob’s Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl could be included in either Abolitionism or in Suffrage and Feminism (we chose the latter). Likewise, Margaret Sanger’s classic essay Morality and Birth Control might well be included in Suffrage and Feminism, but we placed it in Radical Environmentalism. The point is simply that various radicalisms sometimes have a great deal in common, and that individuals may associate with multiple radical movements.

    Another objective has been to present these voices to the public without tampering too much with the individual documents themselves. Of course, we have had to edit many of the pieces for length, but when this was necessary, we took great care to preserve the integrity of the material. Given that the charge of social historians is to pay close attention to ordinary voices, we want to offer our readers the opportunity to do the same in the hopes that they will learn something about how to critically engage primary source material on its own terms. Our second goal, then, is a purely pedagogical one. This book is not meant to replace textbooks and monographs, but rather to complement the work of contemporary historians, to prompt thinking about the relationship between primary and secondary sources, and to open up new avenues of inquiry to secondary and college students.

    Finally, The Radical Reader would be missing something if it did not have an objective that was more expressly political. In the spirit of our radical forebears, we hope that this collection will lead to more charitable perceptions of the role that radicalism has played. The United States has always been a protest nation. From the political unrest that gave rise to the Declaration of Independence to the recent mobilizations against unbridled corporate greed and war, the United States has boasted rich traditions of resistance and dissent. Radicalism, so the saying goes, is as American as apple pie. Imagine, for a moment, what America would be like today, if not for the contributions of abolitionists, feminists, labor organizers, civil rights workers, gay and lesbian activists, and environmentalists who have struggled to make the founding promises of American democracy a reality. So much of what we love about the United States—its stubborn promise of equality, its opportunities for social mobility, its guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly, its multiculturalism and relative tolerance for diversity—has been achieved through the hard work of radicals. Indeed, if more Americans were to realize that radicalism is responsible for so many of the things we take for granted—from the right to vote to reasonable work days—our democracy might be less difficult to sustain. Let’s face it: If left to those in power, the march of progress would look more like a traffic jam or a line outside of a sold-out rock concert. The promises of freedom and equality that lie at the very heart of American democracy have rarely been given freely or distributed equally. Most of the time, they have had to be demanded and taken.

    CHAPTER ONE

    American Revolution

    1. JAMES OTIS

    The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (1764)

    JAMES OTIS (1725–1783) was among the first colonists to question the universal authority of the British Parliament to govern its North American colonies. Born in West Barnstable, Massachusetts, and educated at Harvard, Otis was a distinguished scholar of literature and law who served in the Massachusetts House of Representatives from 1761 to 1771. Following the controversial passage of the Sugar and Stamp Acts in 1764 and 1765, respectively, Otis published his famous pamphlet, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, which argued that Britain had no right to tax the colonists if they were not actually represented in Parliament. Originally published in Boston but widely read on both sides of the Atlantic, Otis’s pamphlet was notable for its attempt to balance respect for the traditional governing authority of Parliament with emerging colonial demands for rights and representation in legislative matters.

    SOURCE: Bernard Bailyn, ed. Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750–1776. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1965.

    SELECTED READINGS: Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967). Edmund S. and Helen M. Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution (1953). P. D. G. Thomas, British Politics and the Stamp Act Crisis: The First Phase of the American Revolution, 1763–1767 (1975).

    In order to form an idea of the natural rights of the colonists, I presume it will be granted that they are men, the common children of the same Creator with their brethren of Great Britain. Nature has placed all such in a state of equality and perfect freedom to act within the bounds of the laws of nature and reason without consulting the will or regarding the humor, the passions, or whims of any other man, unless they are formed into a society or body politic. This it must be confessed is rather an abstract way of considering men than agreeable to the real and general course of nature. The truth is, as has been shown, men come into the world and into society at the same instant. But this hinders not but that the natural and original rights of each individual may be illustrated and explained in this way better than in any other. We see here, by the way, a probability that this abstract consideration of men, which has its use in reasoning on the principles of government, has insensibly led some of the greatest men to imagine some real general state of nature agreeable to this abstract conception, antecedent to and independent of society. This is certainly not the case in general, for most men become members of society from their birth, though separate independent states are really in the condition of perfect freedom and equality with regard to each other, and so are any number of individuals who separate themselves from a society of which they have formerly been members, for ill treatment or other good cause, with express design to found another. If in such case there is a real interval between the separation and the new conjunction, during such interval the individuals are as much detached and under the law of nature only as would be two men who should chance to meet on a desolate island.

    The colonists are by the law of nature freeborn, as indeed all men are, white or black. No better reasons can be given for enslaving those of any color than such as Baron Montesquieu has humorously given as the foundation of that cruel slavery exercised over the poor Ethiopians, which threatens one day to reduce both Europe and America to the ignorance and barbarity of the darkest ages. Does it follow that ’tis right to enslave a man because he is black? Will short curled hair like wool instead of Christian hair, as ’tis called by those whose hearts are as hard as the nether millstone, help the argument? Can any logical inference in favor of slavery be drawn from a flat nose, a long or a short face? Nothing better can be said in favor of a trade that is the most shocking violation of the law of nature, has a direct tendency to diminish the idea of the inestimable value of liberty, and makes every dealer in it a tyrant, from the director of an African company to the petty chapman in needles and pins on the unhappy coast. It is a clear truth that those who every day barter away other men’s liberty will soon care little for their own. To this cause must be imputed that ferocity, cruelty, and brutal barbarity that has long marked the general character of the sugar islanders. They can in general form no idea of government but that which in person or by an overseer, the joint and several proper representative of a creole¹ and of the d——l, is exercised over ten thousand of their fellow men, born with the same right to freedom and the sweet enjoyments of liberty and life as their unrelenting taskmasters, the overseers and planters.

    Is it to be wondered at if when people of the stamp of a creolean planter get into power they will not stick for a little present gain at making their own posterity, white as well as black, worse slaves if possible than those already mentioned?

    There is nothing more evident, says Mr. Locke, than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one among another without subordination and subjection, unless the master of them all should by any manifest declaration of his will set one above another and confer on him by an evident and clear appointment an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty. The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. This is the liberty of independent states; this is the liberty of every man out of society and who has a mind to live so; which liberty is only abridged in certain instances, not lost to those who are born in or voluntarily enter into society; this gift of God cannot be annihilated.

    2.

    Resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress (1765)

    In 1765, the British Parliament passed the STAMP ACT, which required American colonists to pay taxes on stamped paper required for a variety of official documents, including legal papers, sales and licenses, and newspapers. Designed to raise money to fund the presence of British troops in North America following the French and Indian (or Seven Years’) War (1756–1763), the Stamp Act sparked a wave of protest in the colonies. In October 1765, delegates from nine colonies denounced the Stamp Act, and drafted a set of grievances regarding Parliament’s right to tax the colonists without allowing the colonies actual legislative representation. The resolutions of this Stamp Act Congress advanced the claim that while Parliament had the right to approve certain legislation, the authority to tax was reserved for colonial assemblies comprised of locally elected representatives. The Stamp Act Congress, which led to the repeal of the Stamp Act the following year, was the first of many examples of colonial cooperation to resist the power of Parliament.

    SOURCE: Samuel Eliot Morison, ed. Sources and Documents Illustrating the American Revolution, 1764–1788. 2nd edition. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1965.

    SELECTED READINGS: Edmund S. Morgan, The Birth of the Republic, 1763–89 (1992). Jack P. Greene, Peripheries and Center: Constitutional Development in the Extended Policies of the British Empire and the United States, 1607–1788 (1986). Pauline Maier, From Resistance to Revolution: Colonial Radicals and the Development of American Opposition to Britain, 1765–1776 (1974).

    The members of this Congress, sincerely devoted with the warmest sentiments of affection and duty to His Majesty’s person and Government, inviolably attached to the present happy establishment of the Protestant succession, and with minds deeply impressed by a sense of the present and impending misfortunes of the British colonies on this continent; having considered as maturely as time will permit the circumstances of the said colonies, esteem it our indispensible duty to make the following declarations of our humble opinion respecting the most essential rights and liberties of the colonists, and of the grievances under which they labour, by reason of several late Acts of Parliament.

    I. That His Majesty’s subjects in these colonies owe the same allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that august body the Parliament of Great Britain.

    II. That His Majesty’s liege subjects in these colonies are intitled to all the inherent rights and liberties of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.

    III. That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them but with their own consent, given personally or by their representatives.

    IV. That the people of these colonies are not, and from their local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of Commons in Great Britain.

    V. That the only representatives of the people of these colonies are persons chosen therein by themselves, and that no taxes ever have been, or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective legislatures.

    VI. That all supplies to the Crown being free gifts of the people, it is unreasonable and inconsistent with the principles and spirit of the British Constitution, for the people of Great Britain to grant to His Majesty the property of the colonists.

    VII. That trial by jury is the inherent and invaluable right of every British subject in these colonies.

    VIII. That the late Act of Parliament, entitled An Act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, and other duties, in the British colonies and plantations in America, etc., by imposing taxes on the inhabitants of these colonies; and the said Act, and several other Acts, by extending the jurisdiction of the courts of Admiralty beyond its ancient limits, have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and liberties of the colonists.

    IX. That the duties imposed by several late Acts of Parliament, from the peculiar circumstances of these colonies, will be extremely burthensome and grievous; and from the scarcity of specie, the payment of them absolutely impracticable.

    X. That as the profits of the trade of these colonies ultimately center in Great Britain, to pay for the manufactures which they are obliged to take from thence, they eventually contribute very largely to all supplies granted there to the Crown.

    XI. That the restrictions imposed by several late Acts of Parliament on the trade of these colonies will render them unable to purchase the manufactures of Great Britain.

    XII. That the increase, prosperity, and happiness of these colonies depend on the full and free enjoyments of their rights and liberties, and an intercourse with Great Britain mutually affectionate and advantageous.

    XIII. That it is the right of the British subjects in these colonies to petition the King or either House of Parliament.

    Lastly, That it is the indispensible duty of these colonies to the best of sovereigns, to the mother country, and to themselves, to endeavour by a loyal and dutiful address to His Majesty, and humble applications to both Houses of Parliament, to procure the repeal of the Act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, of all clauses of any other Acts of Parliament, whereby the jurisdiction of the Admiralty is extended as aforesaid, and of the other late Acts for the restriction of American commerce.

    3. JOHN DICKINSON

    Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies (1768)

    JOHN DICKINSON (1732–1808) was actually neither a farmer nor a native of Pennsylvania, but he was still one of the most eloquent spokesmen for colonial rights during the period before the American Revolution. Born in Maryland, and educated in Delaware and London, Dickinson spent most of his adult life as a prominent lawyer and political figure in Philadelphia. Author of the famous resolutions approved by the Stamp Act Congress in 1765, Dickinson had a keen command of history, law, and philosophy. He was by nature more of a conservative than a revolutionary thinker, so much so that in 1776 he refused to sign the Declaration of Independence on the grounds that it, like the Stamp Act, was a violation of British tradition. Still, Dickinson was regarded by some as the Penman of the Revolution, in large part due to a series of letters he wrote for colonial newspapers in 1767. Addressed to My Dear Countrymen and signed A Farmer, Dickinson’s letters, twelve in all, were published in pamphlet form the following year, and distributed widely in America and Europe. Arguably the most influential pamphlet before Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, Dickinson’s Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania argued that Parliament had overstepped its authority by imposing taxes to raise revenue for the British Empire, thereby generating suspicion among colonists that there was a conspiracy in the works against them.

    SOURCE: Forrest McDonald, ed. Empire and Nation. 2nd edition. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1999.

    SELECTED READINGS: Robert Middlekauff, The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763–1789 (1982). James Kirby Martin, Men in Rebellion: Higher Government Leaders and the Coming of the American Revolution (1974). Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967).

    My dear Countrymen,

    I am a Farmer, settled, after a variety of fortunes, near the banks of the river Delaware, in the province of Pennsylvania. I received a liberal education, and have been engaged in the busy scenes of life; but am now convinced, that a man may be as happy without bustle, as with it. My farm is small; my servants are few, and good; I have a little money at interest; I wish for no more; my employment in my own affairs is easy; and with a contented grateful mind, undisturbed by worldly hopes or fears, relating to myself, I am completing the number of days allotted to me by divine goodness.

    Being generally master of my time, I spend a good deal of it in a library, which I think the most valuable part of my small estate; and being acquainted with two or three gentlemen of abilities and learning, who honor me with their friendship, I have acquired, I believe, a greater knowledge in history, and the laws and constitution of my country, than is generally attained by men of my class, many of them not being so fortunate as I have been in the opportunities of getting information.

    From my infancy I was taught to love humanity and liberty. Enquiry and experience have since confirmed my reverence for the lessons then given me, by convincing me more fully of their truth and excellence. Benevolence toward mankind, excites wishes for their welfare, and such wishes endear the means of fulfilling them. These can be found in liberty only, and therefore her sacred cause ought to be espoused by every man on every occasion, to the utmost of his power. As a charitable, but poor person does not withhold his mite, because he cannot relieve all the distresses of the miserable, so should not any honest man suppress his sentiments concerning freedom, however small their influence is likely to be. Perhaps he may touch some wheel, that will have an effect greater than he could reasonably expect.

    These being my sentiments, I am encouraged to offer to you, my countrymen, my thoughts on some late transactions, that appear to me to be of the utmost importance to you. Conscious of my own defects, I have waited some time, in expectation of seeing the subject treated by persons much better qualified for the task; but being therein disappointed, and apprehensive that longer delays will be injurious, I venture at length to request the attention of the public, praying, that these lines may be read with the same zeal for the happiness of British America, with which they were wrote.

    With a good deal of surprise I have observed, that little notice has been taken of an act of parliament, as injurious in its principle to the liberties of these colonies, as the Stamp Act was: I mean the act for suspending the legislation of New York.

    The assembly of that government complied with a former act of parliament, requiring certain provisions to be made for the troops in America, in every particular, I think, except the articles of salt, pepper and vinegar. In my opinion they acted imprudently, considering all circumstances, in not complying so far as would have given satisfaction, as several colonies did: But my dislike of their conduct in that instance, has not blinded me so much, that I cannot plainly perceive, that they have been punished in a manner pernicious to American freedom, and justly alarming to all the colonies.

    If the British parliament has legal authority to issue an order, that we shall furnish a single article for the troops here, and to compel obedience to that order, they have the same right to issue an order for us to supply those troops with arms, clothes, and every necessary; and to compel obedience to that order also; in short, to lay any burthens they please upon us. What is this but taxing us at a certain sum, and leaving to us only the manner of raising it? How is this mode more tolerable than the Stamp Act? Would that act have appeared more pleasing to Americans, if being ordered thereby to raise the sum total of the taxes, the mighty privilege had been left to them, of saying how much should be paid for an instrument of writing on paper, and how much for another on parchment?

    An act of parliament, commanding us to do a certain thing, if it has any validity, is a tax upon us for the expense that accrues in complying with it; and for this reason, I believe, every colony on the continent, that chose to give a mark of their respect for Great Britain, in complying with the act relating to the troops, cautiously avoided the mention of that act, lest their conduct should be attributed to its supposed obligation.

    The matter being thus stated, the assembly of New York either had, or had not, a right to refuse submission to that act. If they had, and I imagine no American will say they had not, then the parliament had no right to compel them to execute it. If they had not this right, they had no right to punish them for not executing it; and therefore no right to suspend their legislation, which is a punishment. In fact, if the people of New York cannot be legally taxed but by their own representatives, they cannot be legally deprived of the privilege of legislation, only for insisting on that exclusive privilege of taxation. If they may be legally deprived in such a case, of the privilege of legislation, why may they not, with equal reason, be deprived of every other privilege? Or why may not every colony be treated in the same manner, when any of them shall dare to deny their assent to any impositions, that shall be directed? Or what signifies the repeal of the Stamp Act, if these colonies are to lose their other privileges, by not tamely surrendering that of taxation?

    There is one consideration arising from this suspension, which is not generally attended to, but shows its importance very clearly. It was not necessary that this suspension should be caused by an act of parliament. The crown might have restrained the governor of New York, even from calling the assembly together, by its prerogative in the royal governments. This step, I suppose, would have been taken, if the conduct of the assembly of New York had been regarded as an act of disobedience to the crown alone; but it is regarded as an act of disobedience to the authority of the BRITISH LEGISLATURE. This gives the suspension a consequence vastly more affecting. It is a parliamentary assertion of the supreme authority of the British legislature over these colonies, in the point of taxation, and is intended to COMPEL New York into a submission to that authority. It seems therefore to me as much a violation of the liberties of the people of that province, and consequently of all these colonies, as if the parliament had sent a number of regiments to be quartered upon them till they should comply. For it is evident, that the suspension is meant as a compulsion; and the method of compelling is totally indifferent. It is indeed probable, that the sight of redcoats, and the hearing of drums, would have been most alarming; because people are generally more influenced by their eyes and ears, than by their reason. But whoever seriously considers the matter, must perceive that a dreadful stroke is aimed at the liberty of these colonies. I say, of these colonies; for the cause of one is the cause of all. If the parliament may lawfully deprive New York of any of her rights, it may deprive any, or all the other colonies of their rights; and nothing can possibly so much encourage such attempts, as a mutual inattention to the interests of each other. To divide, and thus to destroy, is the first political maxim in attacking those, who are powerful by their union. He certainly is not a wise man, who folds his arms, and reposes himself at home, viewing, with unconcern, the flames that have invaded his neighbor’s house, without using any endeavors to extinguish them. When Mr. Hampden’s ship money case, for Three Shillings and Four-pence, was tried, all the people of England, with anxious expectation, interested themselves in the important decision; and when the slightest point, touching the freedom of one colony, is agitated, I earnestly wish, that all the rest may, with equal ardor, support their sister. Very much may be said on this subject; but I hope, more at present is unnecessary.

    With concern I have observed, that two assemblies of this province have sat and adjourned, without taking any notice of this act. It may perhaps be asked, what would have been proper for them to do? I am by no means fond of inflammatory measures; I detest them. I should be sorry that anything should be done which might justly displease our sovereign, or our mother country: But a firm, modest exertion of a free spirit, should never be wanting on public occasions. It appears to me, that it would have been sufficient for the assembly to have ordered our agents to represent to the King’s ministers their sense of the suspending act, and to pray for its repeal. Thus we should have borne our testimony against it; and might therefore reasonably expect that, on a like occasion, we might receive the same assistance from the other colonies.

    Concordia res parvae crescunt.

    Small things grow great by concord.

    A Farmer

    Nov. 5.²

    4. SAMUEL ADAMS

    A State of the Rights of the Colonists (1772)

    Regarded by many of his contemporaries as the Father of the American Revolution, SAMUEL ADAMS (1722–1803) was one of the most successful political figures of his era. Born into one of Boston’s elite families, Adams was educated at Harvard and went on to practice law, serve as a delegate to the Continental Congress, sign the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, and serve as Governor of Massachusetts. Though Adams has been portrayed as an impetuous firebrand, his embrace of independence evolved gradually over time. However, following the Boston Massacre and a series of abuses by Massachusetts Governor Thomas Hutchinson, Adams convened a town meeting on November 2, 1772, to discuss the formation of a committee of correspondence to draft a statement about the repeated violations of colonial rights. Designed to generate a union of sentiments among the colonists, the resulting publication, A State of the Rights of the Colonists, was highly effective in arousing public outrage and action. As with his political career generally, Adams’s pamphlet was credited with helping to coordinate public opinion and unite otherwise disparate factions in the cause of independence.

    SOURCE: Merrill Jensen, ed. Tracts of the American Revolution, 1763–1776. Indianapolis and New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1967.

    SELECTED READINGS: Pauline Maier, The Old Revolutionaries: Political Lives in the Age of Sam Adams (1990). Richard D. Brown, Revolutionary Politics in Massachusetts: The Boston Committee of Correspondence and the Towns, 1772–1774 (1970). Steward Beach, Samuel Adams, The Fateful Years, 1764–1776 (1965).

    1st. Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men

    Among the natural Rights of the Colonists are these: First, a Right to Life; Secondly to Liberty; thirdly to Property; together with the Right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. Those are evident Branches of, rather than deductions from the Duty of Self Preservation, commonly called the first Law of Nature.

    All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please; And in case of intollerable Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.

    When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

    Every natural Right not expressly given up or from the nature of a Social Compact necessarily ceded remains.

    All positive and civil laws, should conform as far as possible, to the Law of natural reason and equity.

    As neither reason requires, nor religion permits the contrary, every Man living in or out of a state of civil society, has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.

    Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all Men are clearly entitled to, by the eternal and immutable laws Of God and nature, as well as by the law of Nations, & all well grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.

    In regard to Religion, mutual tolleration in the different professions thereof, is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practiced; and both by precept and example inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among christians that this spirit of toleration in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society is the chief characteristical mark of the true church & In so much that Mr. Lock has asserted, and proved beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only Sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach Doctrines subversive of the Civil Government under which they live. The Roman Catholicks or Papists are excluded by reason of such Doctrines as these "that Princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those they call Hereticks may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of Government, by introducing as far as possible into the states, under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty and property, that solecism in politicks, Imperium in imperio leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war and blood shed.

    The natural liberty of Men by entring into society is abridg’d or restrained so far only as is necessary for the Great end of Society the best good of the whole. . . .

    3rd. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects

    A Common Wealth or state is a body politick or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity, by means of their union.

    The absolute Rights of Englishmen, and all freemen in or out of Civil society, are principally, personal security, personal liberty and private property.

    All Persons born in the British American Colonies are by the laws of God and nature, and by the Common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well Entitled, and by Acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled to all the natural essential, inherent & inseperable Rights Liberties and Privileges of Subjects born in Great Britain, or within the Realm. Among those Rights are the following; which no men or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens or members of society, can for themselves give up, or take away from others.

    First, "The first fundamental positive law of all Commonwealths or States, is the establishing the legislative power; as the first fundamental natural law also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the Society."

    Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people. Nor can mortals assume a prerogative, not only too high for men, but for Angels; and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.

    "The Legislative cannot Justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that Justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided, by promulgated, standing and known laws, and authorized independent Judges; that is independent as far as possible of Prince or People. There shall be one rule of Justice for rich and poor; for the favorite in Court, and the Countryman at the Plough."

    Thirdly, The supreme power cannot Justly take from any man, any part of his property without his consent, in person or by his Representative.

    5.

    Slave Petitions for Freedom (1773)

    With its emphasis on independence, liberty, and equality, the American Revolution helped inspire a mounting opposition to the institution of slavery. By 1804, every Northern state had passed some kind of gradual abolition law, resulting in the largest period of emancipation prior to the Civil War. During the 1770s and 1780s especially, slaves gained their freedom through a variety of means, including private manumissions, individual flight, public petitions, and service in the Revolutionary army. Indeed, an estimated five thousand African Americans—slave and free—performed wartime military service. Caught up in the fervor of Revolution, many blacks also petitioned colonial legislatures for their freedom. Mixing Christian religious principles with political reasoning based on the ideals of the Enlightenment, the following slave petitions highlight the hypocrisy of slavery in a free republic, and demand the full extension of the Revolution’s promise to black Americans.

    SOURCE: Herbert Aptheker, ed. A Documentary History of the Negro People in the United States, Volume One. New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1990.

    SELECTED READINGS: Joanne Pope Melish, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780–1860 (1998). James and Lois Horton, In Hope of Liberty: Culture, Community, and Protest Among Northern Free Blacks, 1700–1860 (1997). David Waldstreicher, In the Midst of Perpetual Fetes: The Making of American Nationalism, 1776–1820 (1997).

    Province of the Massachusetts Bay To His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, Esq; Governor; To The Honorable His Majesty’s Council, and To the Honorable House of Representatives in General Court assembled at Boston, the 6th Day of January, 1773.

    The humble PETITION of many Slaves, living in the Town of Boston, and other Towns in the Province is this, namely.

    That your Excellency and Honors, and the Honorable the Representatives would be pleased to take their unhappy State and Condition under your wise and just Consideration.

    We desire to bless God, who loves Mankind, who sent his Son to die for their Salvation, and who is no respecter of Persons; that he hath lately put it into the Hearts of Multitudes on both Sides of the Water, to bear our Burthens, some of whom are Men of great Note and Influence; who have pleaded our Cause with Arguments which we hope will have their weight with this Honorable Court.

    We presume not to dictate to your Excellency and Honors, being willing to rest our Cause on your Humanity and Justice; yet would beg Leave to say a Word or two on the Subject.

    Although some of the Negroes are vicious, (who doubtless may be punished and restrained by the same Laws which are in Force against other of the King’s Subjects) there are many others of a quite different Character, and who, if made free, would soon be able as well as willing to bear a Part in the Public Charges; many of them of good natural Parts, are discreet, sober, honest, and industrious; and may it not be said of many, that they are virtuous and religious, although their Condition is in itself so unfriendly to Religion, and every moral Virtue except Patience. How many of that Number have there been, and now are in this Province, who have had every Day of their Lives imbittered with this most intollerable Reflection, That, let their Behaviour be what it will, neither they, nor their Children to all Generations, shall ever be able to do, or to possess and enjoy any Thing, no, not even Life itself, but in a Manner as the Beasts that perish.

    We have no Property! We have no Wives! No Children! We have no City! No Country! But we have a Father in Heaven, and we are determined, as far as his Grace shall enable us, and as far as our degraded contemptuous Life will admit, to keep all his Commandments: Especially will we be obedient to our Masters, so long as God in his sovereign Providence shall suffer us to be holden in Bondage.

    It would be impudent, if not presumptuous in us, to suggest to your Excellency and Honors any Law or Laws proper to be made, in relation to our unhappy State, which, although our greatest Unhappiness, is not our Fault; and this gives us great Encouragement to pray and hope for such Relief as is consistent with your Wisdom, Justice, and Goodness.

    We think Ourselves very happy, that we may thus address the Great and General Court of this Province, which great and good Court is to us, the best Judge, under God, of what is wise, just and good.

    We humbly beg Leave to add but this one Thing more: We pray for such Relief only, which by no Possibility can ever be productive of the least Wrong or Injury to our Masters; but to us will be as Life from the dead.

    Signed,

    Felix

    Boston, April 20th, 1773

    Sir, The efforts made by the legislative of this province in their last sessions to free themselves from slavery, gave us, who are in that deplorable state, a high degree of satisfaction. We expect great things from men who have made such a noble stand against the designs of their fellow-men to enslave them. We cannot but wish and hope Sir, that you will have the same grand object, we mean civil and religious liberty, in view in your next session. The divine spirit of freedom, seems to fire every humane breast on this continent, except such as are bribed to assist in executing the execrable plan.

    We are very sensible that it would be highly detrimental to our present masters, if we were allowed to demand all that of right belongs to us for past services; this we disclaim. Even the Spaniards, who have not those sublime ideas of freedom that English men have, are conscious that they have no right to all the services of their fellow-men, we mean the Africans, whom they have purchased with their money; therefore they allow them one day in a week to work for themselves, to enable them to earn money to purchase the residue of their time, which they have a right to demand in such portions as they are able to pay for (a due appraizement of their services being first made, which always stands at the purchase money.) We do not pretend to dictate to you Sir, or to the Honorable Assembly, of which you are a member. We acknowledge our obligations to you for what you have already done, but as the people of this province seem to be actuated by the principles of equity and justice, we cannot but expect your house will again take our deplorable case into serious consideration, and give us that ample relief which, as men, we have a natural right to.

    But since the wise and righteous governor of the universe, has permitted our fellow men to make us slaves, we bow in submission to him, and determine to behave in such a manner as that we may have reason to expect the divine approbation of, and assistance in, our peaceable and lawful attempts to gain our freedom.

    We are willing to submit to such regulations and laws, as may be made relative to us, until we leave the province, which we determine to do as soon as we can, from our joynt labours procure money to transport ourselves to some part of the Coast of Africa, where we propose a settlement. We are very desirous that you should have instructions relative to us, from your town, therefore we pray you to communicate this letter to them, and ask this favor for us.

    In behalf of our fellow slaves in this province, and by order of their Committee.

    Peter Bestes,

    Sambo Freeman,

    Felix Holbrook,

    Chester Joie.

    For the Representative of the town of Thompson.

    6. PATRICK HENRY

    Speech at the Second Virginia Convention (1775)

    By almost all accounts, PATRICK HENRY (1736–1799) was a peerless orator whose golden tongue broadened support for the Revolution among the colonists. Born and raised in Virginia, he was one of the very first colonists to take up the cause of independence, denouncing the Stamp Act and other acts of Parliament, helping establish the Committees of Correspondence, and serving as a delegate to the Continental Congress. His most famous moment, however, came in the speech he delivered at a session of the Virginia Assembly on March 28, 1775, when he denounced King George III and exclaimed, Give me liberty or give me death! A declaration of war as well as independence, Henry’s impassioned speech certainly did not reflect the opinion of everyone in the colonies, but it did help to tip the balance of public opinion in favor of armed conflict with Britain. During and after the war, Henry remained in public life, later denouncing the Constitution on the grounds that it threatened the liberty of both individual citizens and the states. His outspoken criticism did not prevent its ratification, but it did help to inspire the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in 1791. Indeed, the safeguarding of individual liberty within the national government is perhaps the most important part of Henry’s legacy.

    SOURCE: James Albert Woodburn, ed. American Orations: Studies in American Political History. New York and London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1896.

    SELECTED READINGS: Henry Mayer, A Son of Thunder: Patrick Henry and the American Republic (1986). Richard R. Beeman, Patrick Henry: A Biography (1974). Robert D. Meade, Patrick Henry. 2 vols. (1957–1969).

    MR. PRESIDENT:

    No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfil the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offence, I should consider myself as guilty of treason toward my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

    Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that syren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having cars, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and to provide for it.

    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these war-like preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled, that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort.

    I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and

    Enjoying the preview?
    Page 1 of 1