The Revolution and Confederation of States

​

The logic behind the moral justification for the revolution is rapidly becoming lost to modern society but understanding it is critical to understanding the new Republic regardless of what conclusions someone was to reach regarding it.  The common Christian response on questions of government allegiance invariably goes to Paul’s writing in Romans 13 where government is identified as a force of good and admonishes the Christian to respect and comply with civil authorities. During this time period Christians were being accused of being revolutionaries attempting to overthrow Roman authority.  As for government being a force of good, this could only be regarded as a general statement and not a condition that is absolutely true in all instances.  Starting with the writings of St Augustine, Romans 13 has been commonly interpreted to require the believer to comply with man’s law, unless it requires direct violation to God’s law (such as idol worship), and then to be willing to accept whatever punishment for obedience to God the human authority deems appropriate. Augustine also explained the government as being roughly equivalent to organized and legalized thieves so there was no illusion on his part regarding the motives of human authorities or even the depths to which their actions can descend.  Note also that this common interpretation generally allows no room for an argument of self defense as would commonly be made in responding to threat posed by an individual person not acting as a governmental authority.  In current times, Romans 13 is frequently used to justify and even require passive acceptance of virtually all government acts including those that go directly against law. This has the effect of making the definition of authority rest entirely with the executive and unelected bureaucracy, be it at the federal, state, or local level.

​

Assessing the question only from Romans 13 and related Biblical references, it would seem difficult to make much of a case for justification of armed rebellion against British colonial rule especially considering the sins of the British did not appear to be particularly significant when compared to the actions of more modern governments.  To the founders, justification was based on the concept of natural rights and covenant both of which can be less directly linked to Biblical arguments. The concept of natural rights holds that individuals are bestowed with certain rights by God or nature that are not gifted to the people by the government but are inherent to humanity.  This concept limits the role of government and has been central to western civilization and thought.  While natural rights arguably have some legacy in Christian thought, the writing of Jefferson seems to trace most directly to either 18th century European philosopher Jean- Jacques Burlamaqui’s Principles of Natural and Political Law or James Wilson’s Authority of the British Parliament that draws heavily on Burlamaqui’s work(1 pp. ix, x). The government and the governed are then bound in a covenant divinely ordained by God or moral law that is generally also reflected in prescribed legal limits on the exercise of governmental authority.  The concept of covenant was not only extensively established in Puritan culture and literature but was also present in Episcopalian and Presbyterian thought as well as British law and tradition.  Although not Christians, the writings of Jefferson and Locke have strong similarities to this concept of covenant(2 pp. 39-40). The sin of the British was the violation of the covenant between the government and the governed as English citizens.

​

While a case can be made linking the Revolution to Christian concepts, it’s also important to be clear that representative government was in no way a puritan concept historically at this time despite the Puritan role in the English Civil War as a driving force behind the Parliamentarians. The Puritans believed in separate roles for the church and state but also saw them as cooperative entities both under the commands of scripture(3 p. 16) much as an individual person. Quoting from religious historian C. Gregg Singer, “The Church and State were to cooperate in the attainment of their respective goals, for they were both subject to the same God. It was for this reason that the State was to punish blasphemers and heretics” (3 p. 16). To the Puritan, prior to the secularization that was occurring by the time of the revolution, liberty was defined by divine covenant and not natural rights. John Cotton’s assessment of democracy (the term in this context can probably be extended to any form of representative government) is both broadly representative and very definitive.

​

“Democracy, I do not conceive that God ever did ordain as a fit government either for church or for commonwealth. If the people are to be governors, who shall be governed? As for monarchy and aristocracy they are both clearly approved and directed in scripture, yet so as referreth the sovereignty to Himself and seteth up theocracy in both as the best form of government in the commonwealth as well as the church.” John Cotton (3 p. 18)

​

The idea of placing sovereignty in the hands of the mass of people, as proposed by John Locke and other enlightenment thinkers, was entirely unknown to the Puritans.  They “did not believe in government by the people, but they did believe in government of the people” (3 p. 18). Representative government was largely a product of humanism and deism and did not ascend to the level of a divine mission until much later in the early 20th century.

​

 Jefferson did not have an issue with the British form of government either and, while not a monarchist, did not see all monarchies as being inherently unjust and even supported the return of the French monarchy after the French Revolution. The founder’s complaints were specifically with King George III.  Quoting from Brion McClanahan, “Jefferson insisted that the colonists had suffered patiently while the king and Parliament assumed tyrannical rule over the colonies, but only the “present King of Great Britain” deserved the condemnation of the patriot leaders. Jefferson never declared that all kings were unjust, just George III. It is true that Jefferson was not a monarchist, but it is equally true that he thought there were worse things than monarchy.”(4 pp. 35-36)  Further, the decision to revolt was not to be reached lightly and only adopted as a last resort.  One could reasonably argue that the conditions of the colonies prior to the revolution did not meet this criteria but the important point going forward is to understand what the criteria was and to adopt them or reject them uniformly.

​

The common view of the Articles of Confederation is that they produced a weak dysfunctional country and a faltering economy that had to be remedied by popular mandate to save the young country. This mythology has grown with the passing of time as varying forms of statist religion have increasingly taken over academia but those living during the time period would have been hard pressed to recognize the narrative.  There were fairly severe economic problems but they were associated principally with recovering from a long destructive war and establishing lost infrastructure. While there were nationalists amongst the founding fathers like Ben Franklin and John Adams, the consensus reflected in the articles, drafted by John Dickinson, had the states retaining the all powers of an independent country.(4 p. 37)  The concept of a state being a subdivision of a larger political unit was not well established at that time with localized government considered to be the best form of government. Even the idea of regulating commerce was not popular. The Confederation existed primarily for the purposes of common defense but still required 2/3 approval to enter into wars or treaties.  Article II explicitly affirmed that “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence”(4 pp. 36-38). Jefferson wrote that the “United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown . . . and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” (4 p. 36)

​

An interesting and relevant point about the founding of the of American Confederation is that the colonists probably had more per capita government experience that any people on earth either before or since in large part due to the small and dispersed population and those holding leading roles in society were generally well familiar with both classical writers and more recent philosophers and commentators of the 17th and 18th century(1 p. 2). Yet the formation of a government proved far more difficult than anticipated. While there was a good deal of experience, it was predominantly at the local level and those with higher level experience were largely loyalists who had left. While focusing on winning the war, relatively little attention was given to what was to follow. Benjamin Rush wrote of this, “In our opposition to monarchy, we forgot the temple of tyranny has two doors. We bolted one of them by proper restraints; but we left the other open, by neglecting to guard against the effects of our own ignorance and licentiousness.”(1 p. 3)

 

Bibliography

​

1. McDonald, Forrest. Novus Ordo Seclorum The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution. Lawrence Kansas : University Press of Kansas, 1985.

2. Marsden, George M. Religion & American Culture. Grand Rapids Michigan : Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1990.

3. Singer, C. Gregg. A Theological Interpretation of American History. Vestavis Hills, Alabama : Solid Ground Christian Books, 1964.

4. McClanahan, Brion. The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Founding Fathers - The Greatest Generation in American History. Washington DC : Regnery Publishing, 2017.