Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Hall, Mark David
1997.
THE WILSONIAN DILEMMA.
Southeastern Political Review,
Vol. 25,
Issue. 4,
p.
641.
Article contents
The “Revolution Principle”: Ideology and Constitutionalism in the Thought of James Wilson*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 August 2009
Extract
Americans have not always adjusted comfortably to their peculiar heritage as the first revolutionary people of the modern era. Yet the idea of revolution fascinated the founding generation. The reflective, educated leaders based their speculation on the classical conception they inherited from the English Whig or Common-wealth radicals and the venerable ancients. Many went beyond that perspective in the effort to explain the changes produced by the experiences of 1763 to 1789. These thinkers strove to articulate a distinctively American conception of revolution. This article deals with the contribution toward that end of one man, thus making no claim to definitiveness in any broader sense. James Wilson of Scotland and Pennsylvania merits special study as a seminal thinker of considerable significance in American history. For he stands at the beginning of a line of American theorists and activists who not only espoused the idea of revolution but based American constitutionalism on that seemingly contradictory foundation. From reluctant rebel, Wilson emerged as the preeminent spokesman for a new, progressive ideology which fostered one important strand in the variegated fabric of American constitutional thought.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1977
References
1 For “seminal thinker” as one who strives to change the prevailing paradigm structure, Pocock, J. G. A., Politics, Language and Time (New York, 1971), chap. 1, esp. p. 25Google Scholar.
2 Dennison, George M., “The Dorr War and the Triumph of Institutionalism,” Social Science Journal (in press)Google Scholar.
3 For biographical details, Smith, Page, James Wilson, Founding Father: 1742–1798 (Chapel Hill, 1956)Google Scholar, and McCloskey, Robert G., ed., Works of James Wilson (Cambridge, 1967), 1:1–48Google Scholar.
4 “Considerations on the Nature and Extent of the Legislative Authority of the British Parliament,” McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 2:721–46Google Scholar.
5 Ibid., 2:743: “It was chiefly during the confusions of the republick, when the king was in exile, and unable to assert his rights, that the house of commons began to interfere in colony matters.”
6 “The Case of the Postnati, or the Union of the Realm of Scotland and England; Trin. 6 James I. A.D. 1608,” Calvin's Case, 2 State Trials 559–695 (1908). For Wilson's references, McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 2:581–2, 735–44Google Scholar.
7 Quotations from 2 State Trials 638–9; see also SirBlackstone, William. Commentaries on the Laws of England, ed. Cooley, Thomas, 3rd rev. ed. (Chicago, 1884), 2:91–9, 101–3Google Scholar.
8 St. Sioussat, George Leakin, “The Theory of the Extension of English Statutes to the Plantations,” Association of American Law Schools, Select Essays in Anglo-American Legal History (Boston, 1907), 1:416–30Google Scholar; Goebel, Julius Jr, “The Courts and the Law in Colonial New York,” Essays in the History of Early American Law, ed. Flaherty, David H. (Chapel Hill, 1969), p. 248Google Scholar; Horwitz, Morton J., “The Emergence of an Instrumental Conception of American Law, 1780–1820,” Law in American History, eds. Fleming, Donald and Bailyn, Bernard (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 293–4Google Scholar.
9 Blackstone, , Commentaries, 1:103, 106–9Google Scholar.
10 “The Case of the Island of Grenada…,” Alexander Campbell v. William Hall, 20 State Trials 239–354 (1774), at 320–30. For other pertinent cases, citations in note 8 above.
11 Calvin's Case, 2 State Trials 647–9; for Wilson, McCloskey, Works of Wilson, 2:735Google Scholar.
12 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 2:739–41Google Scholar.
13 “Speech Delivered in the Convention For the Province of Pennsylvania Held at Philadelphia, in January 1775,” McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 2:747–58, at 751Google Scholar. Made later, this statement aptly expressed Wilson's views.
14 On this attitude generally, Reinsch, Paul Samuel, “The English Common Law in the Early American Colonies,” Select Essays, pp. 367–415, at 414–5Google Scholar; Nelson, William E., Americanization of the Common Law (Cambridge, 1975), p. 30Google Scholar; and Zachariah Chafee, Jr., “Colonial Courts and the Common Law,” Flaherty, , Essays, pp. 53–82, at 72, 74–5, 78Google Scholar.
15 Blackstone, , Commentaries, 1:107–8Google Scholar.
16 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 1:363; apt statement made laterGoogle Scholar.
17 See esp. “Considerations,” ibid., 2:745–6. Lord Coke had ridiculed this treasonable theory in his discussion of Hugh Spencer and son who had proposed during the reign of King Edward II that allegiance was to the crown, not to the person of the king, and that therefore the subjects could judge when the king had conducted himself so as to forfeit the crown. That, of course, was the thrust of the Lockean contractual view that won acceptance after the Glorious Revolution in the late seventeenth century. See 2 State Trials 626–7.
18 Generally, see Maier, Pauline, From Resistance to Revolution (New York, 1972), esp. Chap. 9Google Scholar; Bernard Bailyn, “The Central Themes of the American Revolution: An Interpretation,” and Greene, Jack P., “An Uneasy Connection: An Analysis of the Preconditions of the American Revolution,” in Essays on the American Revolution, eds., Kurtz, Stephen G. & Hutson, James H. (New York, 1973), pp. 3–80Google Scholar.
19 Bailyn, Bernard, “Common Sense,” Fundamental Testaments of the American Revolution (Washington, 1973), pp. 7–22, at 14–9Google Scholar.
20 Murrin, John M., “Anglicization and Identity: The Colonial Experience, the Revolution and the Dilemma of American Nationalism” (Paper presented to the Annual Convention of the Organization of American Historians, Denver, 1974), pp. 18–19ffGoogle Scholar.
21 Ford, Worthington Chauncey, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress (Washington, 1905–1937), 4:134–46 (13 Jan. 1776)Google Scholar: and Edmund C. Burnett, ed., Letters of Members of the Continental Congress (reprint ed., Gloucester, Mass., 1963). 1:303–4 (Richard Smith, Diary, 9 Jan. 1776).
22 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 2:757–8 (Speech of 01 1775)Google Scholar.
23 Ford, , Journals, 4:146 (Draft of proposed address, 13 01 1776)Google Scholar. See also Burnett, , Letters, 1:95Google Scholar (Wilson to J. Montgomery, 22 May 1775, urging Montgomery to “promote, as far as lies in your Power, the military Spirit that so laudably prevails in Cumberland County.”), 347–8 (Richard Smith, Diary, 13 Feb. 1776, on Wilson's views about American liberty first and Empire second).
24 Ford, , Journals, 4:342, 357–8 (10, 15 05 1776)Google Scholar; Butterfield, L.H. et al. , eds., Adams Papers (New York, 1964), 2:238–41; 3:335, 382–6 (On debates of 10, 15 May 1776)Google Scholar.
25 Quoting Maier, Pauline, “The Beginnings of American Republicanism, 1976–1776,” Development of a Revolutionary Mentality (Washington, 1972), pp. 99–117, at 108–12Google Scholar.
26 On this mind-set, Pocock, , Politics, Language and Time, pp. 96–103, 203–10Google Scholar.
27 Wood, Gordon, Creation of the American Republic (Chapel Hill, 1969), pp. 10, 12–3, 44–5Google Scholar.
28 Pocock, , Politics, Language and Time, pp. 129–54, 202–30, 241–72Google Scholar.
29 The following paragraph draws on: Wood, , Republic, pp. 3–13, 48–53, 59, 107–8, 114–24Google Scholar; Pocock, , Politics, Language and Time, chaps. 3–4, 6–7, esp. pp. 96–103, 154Google Scholar; Bailyn, , Ideological Origins, pp. 33–4Google Scholar; Kammen, Michael, People of Paradox (New York, 1973), chaps. 4–6, esp. pp. 233–5Google Scholar; Kammen, Michael, Empire and Interest (New York, 1970), chaps. 5–6Google Scholar; Nelson, , Americanization, p. 145Google Scholar; Berthoff, Rowland, An Unsettled People (New York, 1971), pt. 1Google Scholar; Henretta, James A., Evolution of American Society (Lexington, 1973), pp. 138–46Google Scholar; and Egnal, Marc and Ernst, James A., “An Economic Interpretation of the American Revolution,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser. 29 (1972), 3–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
30 Ballagh, James Curtis, ed., Letters of Richard Henry Lee (New York, 1912–1914), 1:177 (to P. Henry, 20 Apr. 1776)Google Scholar.
31 Bushman, Richard, “Corruption and Power in Provincial America,” Revolutionary Mentality, pp. 63–91Google Scholar; citations in note 29 above; Wood, Gordon, “Rhetoric and Reality in the American Revolution,” Random House Reader in American History, eds., Ferguson, E. James et al. (New York, 1970), pp. 87–90Google Scholar; Rowland Berthoff and John Murrin, “Feudalism, Communalism, and the Yeoman Freeholder: The American Revolution Considered as a Social Accident,” Kurtz, and Hutson, , Essays, pp. 256–88Google Scholar; Lockridge, Kenneth A., A New England Town (New York, 1970), chap. 9Google Scholar.
32 Edmund S. Morgan, “Conflict and Consensus in the American Revolution,” Kurtz, and Hutson, , Essays, pp. 289–309Google Scholar; Henretta, , Evolution, pp. 157–86Google Scholar.
33 Wood, , Republic, pp. 83–90Google Scholar.
34 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 1:17–24, 292Google Scholar.
35 Ibid., 2:794–802: “Kings are not the only tyrants.”
36 On this phenomenon, Wood, Republic, chaps. 7–11.
37 Jameson, John Alexander, Treatise on Constitutional Conventions, 4th ed. (Chicago, 1887), pp. 1–145Google Scholar; Wood, Republic, chap. 7; for Wilson, , McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 2:751Google Scholar.
38 Jameson, , Treatise, pp. 142–5Google Scholar; Boorstin, Daniel, The Americans (New York, 1965), 2:409–12Google Scholar; and Peterson, Merrill D., ed., Democracy, Liberty, and Property (Indianapolis, 1966), “Introduction.”Google Scholar
39 “Articles of Confederation,” Documents of American History, ed. Commager, Henry Steele, 7th ed. (New York, 1963), 1:111–6Google Scholar.
40 “The Annapolis Convention,” Commager, , Documents, 1:132–4Google Scholar; and Burnett, , Letters, 8:475Google Scholar (Rufus King to John Adams, 2 Oct. 1786), 478–9 (Rufus King Address to Mass. Ass., 9 Nov. 1786), 523 (Edward Carrington to James Madison, 18 Dec. 1786), 527, 539, 541 (Rufus King to Elbridge Gerry, 7 Jan., 11 & 18 Feb. 1787), 542 (James Madison to Edmund Randolph, 18 Feb. 1787), 592 (Edward Carrington to Thomas Jefferson, 24 Apr. 1787). Also Henry P. Johnston, ed., Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay (reprint ed., New York, 1970), 3:186, 226–9 (to G. Washington, 16 Mar. 1786, 7 Jan. 1787), 195–6, 201–9, 238–9 (from G. Washington, 18 May, 15 Aug. 1786, 10 Mar. 1787).
41 See esp. Burnett, , Letters, 8:613 (Nathan Dane to Nathaniel Gorham, 22 06 1787)Google Scholar.
42 On instructions, Ford, , Journals, 32:71–4 (Resolution, 21 02 1787)Google Scholar; Farrand, Max, ed., Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (New Haven, 1911–1937), 3:557–90Google Scholar; and Burnett, , Letters, 8:607 (Edward Carrington to Thomas Jefferson, 9 06 1787)Google Scholar. On violation of instructions, Farrand, , Records, 1:1 ffGoogle Scholar.
43 Farrand, , Records, 1:22 (9 05 1787), 123 (5 June 1787), 2:468–9 (30 Aug. 1787), 557–64 (10 Sept. 1787)Google Scholar.
44 Ibid., 2:469, 557–64 (30 Aug. and 10 Sept. 1787); Ford, , Journals, 33:540–1 (26 09 1787)Google Scholar; Johnston, , Papers of Jay, 3:336–8 (from G. Washington, 8 June 1788)Google Scholar.
45 On these two legal theories, see Boorstin, Daniel, Decline of American Radicalism (New York, 1971), pp. 71–96Google Scholar. For a much later dating of the emergence of instrumentalism in the United States, see Horwitz, , “Instrumental Conception,” pp. 285–326Google Scholar. On Wilson, , Farrand, , Records, 2:469 (30 08 1787)Google Scholar.
46 Boorstin, , Decline, 72Google Scholar.
47 Horwitz, “Instrumental Conception,” argued that the effort to ground constitutionalism on popular sovereignty led ineluctably to instrumentalism. He also held that instrumentalism carried with it the conception of law as command, a point disputed by Boorstin, , Decline, pp. 72, 75, 89–94Google Scholar.
48 Roll, Charles W. Jr, “We, Some of the People: Apportionment in the Thirteen State Conventions Ratifying the Constitution,” Journal of American History, 56 (06, 1969), 21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
49 “Cassius, IV,” Essays on the Constitution of the United States, ed. Ford, Paul Leicester (Brooklyn, 1892), pp. 16–7Google Scholar.
50 To confuse these two distinct theories is to mix very different processes. Yet scholars have accused the Federalists of inconsistency because they placed specific provisions in the Constitution for its amendment more demanding that those they employed in 1787, but less difficult than those in the Articles.
51 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 2:770–1 (Speech, Penn. Convention, 26 Nov. 1787)Google Scholar.
52 Locke, John, Second Treatise of Government, ed. Peardon, Thomas P. (New York, 1956), pp. 54–6, 95, 123–39, at 133Google Scholar.
53 Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, 1971)Google Scholar: “rebel,” “ME, fr. OF rebelle, fr. L. rebellis, fr. re + bellum war …” (p. 713). For Locke's specific formulation, Second Treatise, sec. 127.
54 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 1:59Google Scholar. On the high importance he assigned to lawyers, “James Wilson Papers, 1718–1857,” Penn. Historical Society, Philadelphia, “Common Place Book, 1766,” and “Lawyer” (microfilm in writer's possession).
55 On “seminal thinker” and “universe of discourse,” Pocock, , Politics, Language and Time, chap. 1, esp. pp. 24–6Google Scholar.
56 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 1:238–9, 242, 284, 287Google Scholar. These illustrative references can be extended almost at will. McCloskey's discussion at 1:37–40.
57 Ibid., 1:81, 91–2, 97, 154–5, 239, and esp. 2:584–7.
58 Ibid., 1:284, 287, 294–5, 304–8, 353; 2:486–90, 509, 564–5.
59 Ibid., 1:80, 247–9, 287, 300–2.
60 Ibid., 1:239, 284–5, 304–8.
61 Ibid., 1:109.
62 Ibid., 1:304–8.
63 Ibid., 2:588.
64 On “Grand Style” or “Grand Manner” versus “Formal Style,” K. N. Llewellyn, The Bramble Bush (reprint ed., Dobbs Ferry, N.Y., 1960), pp. 157–60. Also Horwitz, Morton J., “The Rise of Legal Formalism,” American Journal of Legal History, 19 (1975), 251–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
65 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 1:121–5, 180–5; 2:486, 488–9, 509, 563–5Google Scholar.
66 Ibid., 2:509.
67 Ibid., 2:444.
68 Ibid., 1:304–8.
69 Ibid., 1:77.
70 Ibid., 1:82.
71 Ibid., 1:97–9. See Pocock, , Politics, Language and Time, pp. 14–5, 25–6, 38–9, on the paradigmatic nature of political philosophyGoogle Scholar.
72 For extended discussion, May, Henry F., The Enlightenment in America (New York, 1976), esp. pt. 3Google Scholar; Pocock, , Politics, Language and Time, pp. 101–3Google Scholar; McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 1:101–2, 130–47, 189–226Google Scholar.
73 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 1:73–4, 79, 84, 111, 127, 138–40, 189–94, 287, 300–2Google Scholar.
74 Jonathan, Elliot, comp., Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, 1881), 2:433 (26 Nov. 1787)Google Scholar.
75 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 2:771Google Scholar.
76 Ibid., 1:310.
77 Ibid., 1:77–9.
78 Ibid., 1:304–8.
79 Ibid., 2:771.
80 Ibid., 1:405–6.
81 Elliot, , Debates, 2:434–5 (26 11 1787)Google Scholar.
82 Ibid., 2:464–5 (4 Dec. 1787).
83 Farrand, , Records, 2:142 (24 11 1787)Google Scholar.
84 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 2:770, emphasis suppliedGoogle Scholar.
85 Ibid., 2:770–1.
86 Ibid.; Wood, , Republic, pp. 319–28, 599, 614–5Google Scholar.
87 McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 1:354Google Scholar.
88 Wood, , Republic, chaps. 12–15, esp. p. 562Google Scholar.
89 Ibid., p. 615.
90 Banning, Lance, “Republican Ideology and the Triumph of the Constitution, 1789 to 1793,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd sec, 31 (1974), 167–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Buel, Richard Jr, Securing the Revolution (Ithaca, 1972), esp. pt. 5Google Scholar; Fischer, David Hackett, Revolution of American Conservatism (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; Dennison, George M., “The Idea of a Party System: A Critique,” Rocky Mountain Social Science Journal, 9 (1972), 31–43Google Scholar.
91 Quotations from Mullins, Willard A., “On the Concept of Ideology in Political Science,” American Political Science Review, 66 (06, 1972), 498–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar. My thanks to Professor James Hunt, Whitman College.
92 Lockridge, , New England Town, p. 174Google Scholar; also Wood, , Republic, p. 612, on the reversal of traditional republican postulates as self-interest displaced self-sacrificeGoogle Scholar.
93 Mullins, , “Ideology,” p. 509Google Scholar.
94 For brief discussion, McCloskey, , Works of Wilson, 1:27–37Google Scholar.
95 2 Dallas 409–10 (1972), esp. note.
96 2 Dallas 419–80 (1973).
97 Quotations from ibid., 453–64. For contrast, Coke's comment, 2 State Trials 611: “… for out of the old fields must come the new corn.” Coke expected the same kind of corn; Wilson anticipated something entirely new.
98 As the Eleventh Amendment demonstrates, most Americans disagreed.
99 Mullins, , “Ideology,” p. 504Google Scholar.
IOO Wood, , Republic, chap. 15, esp. pp. 609–15, on the radical nature of the concept that a people should not be wanting to themselvesGoogle Scholar.
101 Dennison, “Dorr War and the Triumph of Institutionalism.” Cf. Pocock, , Politics, Language and Time, pp. 229–30Google Scholar, on the continuity among forms of thought. Mullins, , “Ideology,” p. 504Google Scholar, noted that while the emergence of an ideological perspective shifts the concerns of people away from the past and toward the future, “How the future is conceived will be greatly influenced, of course, by how the present and past are understood.” The difference lies in the practical concern for shaping the future.
102 Murrin, , “Anglicization,” pp. 35–39aGoogle Scholar.
103 Dennison, George M., The Dorr War: Republicanism on Trial, 1831–1861 (Lexington, 1976), esp. epilogueGoogle Scholar. I would like to make mention of the special thanks owed Professors Arthur Bestor, Trevor Golbourn, Morris Forkosch and Donald Dewey for their advice; American Philosophical and Pennsylvania Historical Archives; Faculty Council Committee on Research, Colorado State University; and an anonymous reader for careful and constructive criticism.
- 1
- Cited by