• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

3\(otes on the 'Pennsylvania Revolutionaries of 17j6 n comparing the American Revolution to similar upheavals in other societies, few persons today would doubt that the Revolu- I tionary leaders of 1776 possessed remarkable intelligence, cour- age, and effectiveness. Today, as the bicentennial of American inde- pendence approaches, their work is a self-evident monument. But below the top leadership level, there has been little systematic col- lection of biographical information about these leaders. As a result, in the confused welter of interpretations that has developed about the Revolution in Pennsylvania, purportedly these leaders sprung from or were acting against certain ill-defined groups. These sup- posedly important political and economic groups included the "east- ern establishment/' the "Quaker oligarchy/' ''propertyless mechan- ics/' "debtor farmers/' "new men in politics/' and "greedy bankers." Regrettably, historians of this period have tended to employ their own definitions, or lack of definitions, to create social groups and use them in any way they desire.1 The popular view, originating with Charles Lincoln's writings early in this century, has been that "class war between rich and poor, common people and privileged few" existed in Revolutionary Pennsylvania. A similar neo-Marxist view was stated clearly by J. Paul Selsam in his study of the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776:2 The struggle obviously was based on economic interests. It was a conflict between the merchants, bankers, and commercial groups of the East and the debtor agrarian population of the West; between the property holders and employers and the propertyless mechanics and artisans of Philadelphia. 1 For the purposes of brevity and readability, the footnotes in this paper have been grouped together and kept to a minimum. Many methodological problems are not clarified or research procedures fully explained. I will gladly elaborate and justify any of this material on request. In this study I have been assisted by Richard Beeman, Lee Benson, Robert Dickerson and Dale Homan. 2 J. Paul Selsam, The Pennsylvania Constitution of iyy6: A Study in Revolutionary Democracy (Philadelphia, 1936), 258. 89 9O ROBERT GOUGH January In reality, such an interpretation does not do justice to the rich and complex social structure which had developed in and around Philadelphia by 1776. Ninety-two southeastern Pennsylvania Revo- lutionary leaders, systematically chosen and studied for this paper, were found to show heterogeneous backgrounds in nationality, re- ligion, social status, economic background, occupation and political experience. Although no one has yet developed a model for the social structure of colonial Philadelphia with which the characteristics of these revolutionaries can be accurately compared, it seems safe to say that they were broadly representative of the population as a whole. While the Revolutionary leadership included some individuals from both the old colonial economic and social elites, and some indi- viduals of insignificance before 1776, the bulk of this group appears to have had substantial "middle-class" backgrounds.3 Certainly the ruling elite of provincial Pennsylvania (if there was one) did not provide exclusive leadership for the Revolutionary movement, as was the case in Virginia; however, the Pennsylvania experience was by no means a proletarian uprising. The ninety-two Revolutionary leaders examined are the persons from Philadelphia, Philadelphia County, Bucks County and Chester County who attended the Provincial Conference in Philadelphia on June 18, 1776, or were delegates to the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention in July, or were members of the first Assembly elected under the new state Constitution in October, 1776. In addition, the members of the Philadelphia Council of Safety, selected in July, 1776, have been included.4 It may be argued that a few of these men were not dedicated revolutionaries; however, a comprehensive methodology as is used here, based on their choice to serve the cause, eliminates the need for subjective designation of "radical" or "conservative" leaders during a time of rapidly shifting political positions. It seems foolish, for example, to classify George Clymer as a "radical" in June for favoring independence and a "conserva- 3 For a similar argument in relation to a neighboring state, using different methodology, see Bernard Friedman, "The Shaping of the Radical Consciousness in Provincial New York," Journal of American History, LVI (1970), 781. 4 Membership lists of these organizations are available in Michael Hillegas, ed., Journal of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1776-1781, with the Proceedings of the several Committees and Conventions before and at the Commencement of the American Revolution (Philadelphia, 1782), 34, 49, 5$, 97» 1972 THE PENNSYLVANIA REVOLUTIONARIES 91 tive" or even a "reactionary" in October for opposing the state Constitution, as some writers have glibly done. These ninety-two men were certainly not the only Revolutionary leaders in Pennsyl- vania. However, they occupied the formal decision-making positions in the colony during the key months from June to September, 1776, and consequently they have been intentionally designated the "Pennsylvania Revolutionaries of 1776."5 The mean age of these revolutionaries was 44.7 years.6 The im- precise quality of eighteenth-century demographic statistics makes comparisons difficult; however, from this data it does not appear that a "generation gap" was a factor in the Revolution. For an era with a much shorter life expectancy than today, an average age of 45 does not support untempered youthful spirits as a cause of the Revolution. Interestingly, the 44.7 figure is within a year of the mean age of both the signers of the Declaration of Independence and of the United States Constitution; evidently, 45 was about the average age for political notables in the late eighteenth century.7 In terms of religious denominations, these revolutionaries again apparently represented a cross-section of southeastern Pennsylvania. At least eighteen, and perhaps as many as twenty-six, of them were 5 Obviously this sample does not include all the Revolutionary leaders of southeastern Pennsylvania. Such prominent names as Joseph Read, Thomas Mifflin, George Bryan and Thomas Young are missing. It would seem, however, that these individuals as a group did not substantially differ from the characteristics of the ninety-two selected revolutionaries. Also, of course, the absence of revolutionaries from the West prohibits conclusions in this paper about the question of East-West tensions, which are significant and deserve analysis in their own right. And care must be taken when generalizing from the necessarily incomplete data accumulated in each category. Other methodological weaknesses exist with a collective biography technique, but this approach offers the virtues of being relatively systematic and unbiased. A list of the revolutionaries and their records is filed under the author's name in the Manuscript Department of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania. 6 Based on information from forty-eight of the ninety-two cases; this is a sufficient per- centage from which to generalize with a high degree of reliability. 7 For general biographical information on some of these individuals see Dictionary of American Biography; "Dictionary of Quaker Biography," typescript, Haverford College Library; John W. Jordan, Colonial Families of Philadelphia (New York, 1911); Henry Simp- son, Lives of Emminent Phi lade Iphians Now Deceased . (Philadelphia, 1859); J. Smith Futhey and Gilbert Cope, History of Chester County, Pennsylvania, with Genealogical and Biographical Sketches (Philadelphia, 1881); J. H. Battle, ed., Biographical Selections and History of Bucks County, Pennsylvania . (Philadelphia, 1887). Scattered sketches also appeared in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography (PMHB) during the i88o's. See also contemporary obituaries in the Pennsylvania Gazette. 92 ROBERT GOUGH January Quakers.8 This figure may be somewhat smaller than the proportion of Quakers in southeastern Pennsylvania in 1776; however, con- sidering the Society of Friends' teachings against violence, it is sub- stantial—indeed, it suggests a much greater role for Quakers than has previously been credited to them.9 Of course, not all of these Quaker revolutionaries were in good standing with their meetings in 1776. Some had already disassociated themselves for various reasons before the Revolution, and involvement in military affairs forced others away from formal membership in 1775-1776 (al- though many were reinstated after the Revolution). On the other hand, many of these Quakers were undoubtedly upstanding in their faith: Joseph Parker, for example, was chosen by the Yearly Meeting in 1751 to serve on a committee for calendar revisions. Between thirteen and seventeen revolutionaries were Anglicans, nine were Presbyterians, three Baptists, and two Lutherans. It is likely that most of the revolutionaries who have not been identified by religion belonged to the last two faiths. In any event, participa- tion in the Revolution does not seem to have been the result of membership in a particular religion.10 Closely related to religious affiliation is the factor of ethnic identi- fication. In this aspect, also, diversity appears to have been charac- teristic of the Pennsylvania revolutionaries' backgrounds. Although English stock predominated, members

Load more

  15

Copy Link