The Declaration And  Its Implications

When American political science first developed as a separate discipline in the late 1800s and early 1900s, its roots were basically historical. In fact, during the early part of the century, courses in political science were originally taught in the history departments of most of our universities and colleges. Even today, there remain a number of schools in which political science courses are still offered through the history department.

Given this origin, it is only natural that at the beginning of this century, political science paid a great deal of attention to historical material. As the role of our national government began to expand during the early twentieth century, and as political science began to borrow methodologies from psychology, sociology, and economics, works on American government began to focus more on the new roles and structures being developed within the national government, and to diminish the amount of space devoted to historical developments. This process became particularly accentuated during the Great Depression of the 1930s when state governments and private businesses were not able to meet many of this nation's needs, and the federal government began to take on a significant number of new and unprecedented roles. During the Second World War, moreover, many political scientists participated quite extensively in national governmental activities. This experience also lead to an increased interest on their part in the day-to-day functioning of our expanding federal government. For this reason, the majority of studies on American government published during the 1950s and 1960s began to pay almost exclusive attention to the current operations of our national government, without much reference to historical developments.

Given the vast increase in the role of the federal government during the first half of this century, such a mid-century focus in political science and in the study of American government was indeed understandable, representing as it did a necessary intellectual development. Today, however, we have experienced almost 100 years of expanded national governmental operations and it has been some 65 years since our federal government first became involved in programmatic activities with the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935. Far from being a new phenomenon, extensive governmental influence and involvement in our daily lives is now a commonplace experience. And as we approach the beginning of the twenty-first century, it becomes important for us to begin to place the current widespread activities of our federal government within a larger historical context.

The point of doing this, however, is not simply one of discovering where we have been. Through this process of historical exploration, we will be able to evaluate where we are as a society today, and more importantly what options we have for the future--especially as we begin to function on a more global level. It is with this approach to history in mind--of not so much seeing it as a study of the past, but viewing it more in terms of contemplation of the future--that we will be exploring some of our nation's early political history. The keynote to such an approach may well be found in the following statement made by Charles Beard during the 1920s:
 

There are those who would suggest that the history of America began in the 1700s--or at most in the 1600s. In some respects such an approach might seem quite reasonable. What such people are referring to, however, is not the history of America per se, but rather the history of Europeans on the American continents. Seen from a broader historical prospective, this is much too short a time frame.

In the larger sense, the history of the Americas began as far back as some ten thousand years ago when Asian people crossed the Bearing Straits which link Asia with what is now Alaska, and began to settle throughout the North and South American continents. During this ten thousand year history, these peoples created many advanced civilizations, including those of the Aztecs in what is now Mexico, the Mayans in what is now Central America, and the Incas in what is now Peru. In fact, when Spanish soldiers arrived in America in the 1500s and began their conquests here, they came in contact with civilizations which were already long past their prime.

In our discussions, we will be focusing on the development of American political institutions beginning some 300 years ago, and noting some of their British and colonial roots. Nevertheless, even as we begin to explore this shorter time span, it is important that we bear in mind that the events we will be discussing occurred within a much broader historical and cultural context, involving the contributions of many peoples and many civilizations.

Of Evolution and Revolution

American political life as we know it today developed to a great extent during the period of approximately 1600 to 1760, when the American continent was generally isolated from Europe. This was when many of the political, economic, and social institutions from which our present ones derive began to take shape. During this time, the governors of the colonies were representatives of the British Crown, and it was the legislatures that represented local inhabitants. Since England did not pay much attention to its colonies in America during this period, it was during these approximately 150 years that the legislatures in the various colonies developed their political styles and tended to dominate the governments of the individual colonies. It was a time when our feelings about representative government took strong root. We might even go so far as to say that this was the period of true social revolution in America.

By the 1760s, England came to feel a great need for additional financial resources in order to run its own government, especially because of its then current military activities in India. In order to raise this revenue, and also to pay for the costs of the French and Indian War which had taken place on the American continent in the 1750s, it sought to tax its colonies--a practice rather common at the time. And so that British Parliament, and not simply King George III as Thomas Jefferson would have us believe, passed the Stamp Act. This was a type of sales tax levied on the American colonists and enacted to raise funds for use by British authorities in England and elsewhere. In order to be better able to regulate American trade to its own advantage, the British Parliament also passed such legislation as the Navigation Laws. The form of taxation and economic control represented by these and other acts deeply affected American business operations and colonial life in general. In addition, these acts signaled a reawakening of the largely dormant power of the royal governors in the various colonies.

To a great extent, therefore, the struggle which ensued took the form of a conflict between the legislatures which represented the people and the royal governors who represented British authority. The slogan "No Taxation Without Representation" reflected the fact that the elected representatives of the colonies had no part in the passage of these tax and trade laws. The American colonists simply felt that after well over 100 years of absence and neglect, England had no right to reimpose its authority. England, on the other hand, felt it had a right to do this since the exercise of such authority was a generally accepted practice of the day.

As the effects of the Stamp and Navigation Acts specifically--and British authority generally-- became more evident in the colonies, a significant segment of the people, although certainly not the majority, felt the need for resistance. They ranged from rabble-rousing radicals, such as Patrick Henry, to more "staid" intellectuals and merchants. There even came into existence during this period what might sound like a youth contingent operating under the name of the "Sons of Liberty." In other words, there existed at this time a broad spectrum of discontent in the colonies, ranging from what we would tody consider liberal to what might currently be labeled radical, with the majority of the people standing by.  They neither supported the King, nor the revolutionaries. They were simply interested in pursuing their own personal interests, no matter what side won. In other words, they just did not want to become involved.

Thus, in one sense at least, what the Founders of the American Revolution were demanding was not really a revolution at all, but rather a return to conditions which had existed prior to the imposition of the Stamp Act--that is, a return to the conditions that had evolved over the previous 150 years. In fact, the merchants who originally supported protest movements during the 1760s and 1770s were simply after the repeal of the Stamp Act and other similar legislation. In order to support these basically economic demands, they made use of those thinkers in the colonies who had been expressing largely political concerns. However, the merchants' interest was simply in the economic effects that new British policies were having. Nevertheless, with the sweep of events and the rise of passions, the political ideals which had been developing during the previous century-and-a-half began to take dominance, and the merchants and business leaders came to see the movement they had originally supported move from simply calling for the repeal of certain legislative acts to far more radical steps, including total separation from England.

There were many colonial leaders who hoped that the differences could be worked out between England and the American colonies. However, attempts at peaceful settlement did not work. And on July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was signed. That is, it was signed by John Hancock and a few others. The rest of the signers waited a bit before signing such a radical document. In some cases, they may have even waited several months.
 
 

History:  Not Just A   Thing of the Past

The Declaration And  Its Implications