3\(otes on the ' of 17j6 n comparing the 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 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 .

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 ; 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 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 ," Journal of American History, LVI (1970), 781. 4 Membership lists of these organizations are available in , 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 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, , 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 of most ethnic groups in southeastern Pennsylvania participated in the 1776 upheaval. Be- tween fifty and fifty-eight persons were English and three to six were Welsh. Perhaps as many as eleven revolutionaries were Scot-

8 The indefiniteness exists because in some cases information could only be located for parents, and in two cases it could not be determined precisely when individuals converted from the Society of Friends to other denominations. 9 See, for example, the general argument in Elisha Douglass, Rebels and Democrats (Chapel Hill, 1958). 10 For religious data, besides the above sources, see M. Mawry Walton, Old St. Joseph's Church, Philadelphia, Pa., 1733-1933 (Philadelphia, 1933); St. Joseph's Church Register of Baptisms 1758-1793 (n.p., n.d.); Francis H. Tees, History of Old St. George's Methodist Epis- copal Church (Philadelphia, 1934); William Montgomery, "Pew Renters of Christ Church, St. Peter's, and St. James, 1776-1815,'* typescript (1948), Historical Society of Pennsylvania; Charles R. Hildeburn, "Records of Christ Church, Philadelphia, Baptisms, 1704-1760," PMHB, XII (1888), 362; XIII (1889), 237; XIV (1890), 427; XV (1891), 222, 354, 486; XVI (1892), in, 363, 449; XVII (1893), 99, 214, 352; Thomas H. Montgomery, "List of Vestrymen of Christ Church, Philadelphia," PMHB, XIX (1895), 518. 1972 THE PENNSYLVANIA REVOLUTIONARIES 93 tish, two to six were Scotch-Irish, and four or five were Irish. Be- sides the Irish, seven Germans and two Dutchmen were the only revolutionaries of non-British stock. We lack ethnic identification for eight individuals. When comparing this breakdown with the ethnic makeup of the entire population, the only data we have for comparison is 's estimate that at the time of the Revolution one-third of the Pennsylvania population was English, one-third Scotch-Irish, and one-third German. While the percentage of English stock was no doubt greater than this in southeastern Pennsylvania, it is somewhat surprising to find that about sixty per cent of the revolutionaries were English—especially considering the emphasis that previously has been given to dissatisfaction among the Germans and Scotch-Irish as a cause of the Revolution. Of course, it is dangerous to attempt to deduce the feelings of large social groups from a sample of their leadership; however, it can be safely concluded from this data that Revolutionary leadership posi- tions certainly did not require minority ethnic membership.11 If the revolutionaries were not drawn from ethnic minorities, did they perhaps represent lower economic orders revolting against wealthy property holders? As was noted above, this interpretation has been popularized by a prominent group of historians including Charles Lincoln, J. Paul Selsam, and Elisha Douglass. As one method of testing this hypothesis, the average tax ratable of the Philadelphia and Philadelphia County Revolutionary leadership for 1774 and 1775 has been computed and compared to the same figure for the general population.12 Sixty-seven per cent of the revolutionaries appear on the 1775 tax rolls, and seventy-two per cent on the 1774 rolls, com- pared to forty to sixty per cent of the total population in each of those years.13 Evidently the relatively propertyless, and therefore

11 Ethnic identification has been made from the sources in notes 7 and 10, supra, and in some cases where it could be safely deduced from the revolutionaries' family names, using standard family name references. 12 Pennsylvania Archives, Third Series, XII, 1-124; XIII, 3-99; XIV, 221-305. See also "County Tax Assessment Ledger, Philadelphia County, 1775," Department of Records, City of Philadelphia. !3 It is difficult to compute precise figures on the percentage of the Philadelphia popula- tion taxed in 1774-1775, partly because it is difficult to determine precisely the population. For reasons I feel to be valid, I am accepting the old estimate of at least 35,000 for the popu- lation of the city and liberties in 1776, and estimating five individuals for every adult male. 94 ROBERT GOUGH January untaxed, elements of the city's population were underrepresented, rather than overrepresented, among the Revolutionary leadership. Additionally, the mean assessment in 1775 of the revolutionaries who were taxed was £107 ios> compared to a figure of £20 to £25 for the total population.14 Obviously the revolutionaries were not prop- ertyless. An examination of individual assessments shows that they included some, but by no means a large proportion, of those of the colonial Philadelphia economic elite. Heavily assessed, £150 or more, revolutionaries in 1775 included George Clymer, William Coates, , George Gray, Henry Hill, Frederick Kuhl, Samuel Morris, Sr., and Samuel Mifflin. Others, such as Thomas McKean, owned extensive property in other jurisdictions or, like Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Loxley, and Thomas Wharton, had their prop- erty rated at a much higher figure in the previous year's assessment. However, the bulk of the revolutionaries were not Powels, Emlens, Aliens, Norrises, Shippens, or Pembertons. Only four of the revolu- tionaries owned property which placed them among the forty top ratables in Philadelphia and Philadelphia County in 1774. Merchants like John Bayard and Owen Biddle were assessed only £12 (1775). Sharp Delaney, a druggist, was listed at the same figure (1775). Robert Lollar, a teacher, was assessed £8 (1775), and the prominent James Cannon, a University of Pennsylvania faculty member, was listed at £25 (1774). Timothy Matlack, a hardware dealer and another prominent revolutionary, received a £10 assessment (1775). David Rittenhouse was assessed £14 (1775).

Systematic examination of these tax rolls, with the realization that they give tax evaluations— not actual property values, which are much higher—shows that at least 20 per cent and perhaps as much as 40-60 per cent of adult males were able to vote, contrary to the old interpretation that placed the figure as low as 2 per cent. It also appears that the top 5 per cent of the population owned about 17 per cent of the taxable wealth, a figure remarkably close to estimates for present-day America and contradictory to the argument that stratifi- cation of wealth in America is recent. I hope to be able to present my proof for these points in the future. On these questions, see the more or less conflicting and inadequate figures in Carl and Jessica Bridenbaugh, Rebels and Gentlemen (Boston, 1940); Jackson T. Main, Social Structure of Revolutionary America (Princeton, 1967); and Sam Bass Warner, The Private City: Philadelphia in Three Periods of Its Growth (Philadelphia, 1968). A great deal of research is needed in these areas where Main has just scratched the surface in order to determine these questions precisely and clear away the myths which have been used as explanations in the past. 14 Two random samples of 300 each produced means of £22 8s and £23 45. 1972 THE PENNSYLVANIA REVOLUTIONARIES 95 Another group of revolutionaries includes George Schlusser, a merchant who was rated at only £65 19^ (1774). However, he subse- quently was able to loan the state £2,000 in 1779;suc ^ hidden reserves were not uncommon—Delaney also found large sums to loan to the state. Robert Morris, who loaned and borrowed sums in the thousands of pounds, was assessed a relatively modest £164 (1775). John Coxe, taxed at only £6 (1775), owned a number of furnaces in Burlington County, . Isaac Hughes was assessed just £50 (1775), although his father had held the lucrative position of collector of the Port of Charleston and afterwards willed his estate to his son. The latter cases underline the point that tax ratables are not absolute guides to the distribution of wealth in colonial Pennsyl- vania. In addition to the problems of tax evasion, it is impossible to measure certain economic resources—such as credit lines with Lon- don and Edinburgh merchants—just by examining the tax ratables. Therefore, two indirect measures of wealth have been studied— contributions to the Pennsylvania Hospital and ownership of coaches. Younger entrepreneurs, such as Robert Morris, who may not have had an opportunity to acquire the expensive homes and other taxable property of the older merchant families, might have used their liquid funds for charitable contributions or ostentatious coaches. In any event, the findings again suggest that many of the 1776 revolutionaries were relatively wealthy, but that certainly only a minority of relatively wealthy Pennsylvanians were revolution- aries. Thirteen Philadelphia revolutionaries, who had only modest tax assessments, appear on the list of contributors to the Hospital, including individuals like Sharp Delaney, Joseph Parker, and Henry Kepple. Seven revolutionaries, including the lightly taxed Robert Morris, were among the eighty-four Philadelphians who owned carriages in 1772.15 Also supporting the belief that the revolutionaries, as a group, should be considered to have been men of modest, but not great, 15 A listing of contributors to the Hospital is included in the appendixes to Thomas G. Morton and Frank Woodbury, The History of the Pennsylvania Hospital, /^/-/8p^ (Phila- delphia, 1895). This list is very extensive but it is not clear if it is intended to be inclusive; for 1754-1761, cf> Some Account of the Philadelphia Hospital (Philadelphia, 1817). For the coach list, see Robert F. Oaks, "Big Wheels in Philadelphia: Du Simitiere's List of Carriage Owners," PMHB, XCV (1971), 351-362. 96 ROBERT GOUGH January affluence are the figures that Jackson T. Main has computed for the distribution of tax assessments in colonial Philadelphia.16 Of the revolutionaries who were taxed in 1774, ninety per cent were rated at £9 or greater, compared to Main's figure of forty-seven per cent of the whole population paying more than that figure in a similar tax in 1769. Twenty-one and seven-tenths per cent were assessed £100 or more, compared to only nine and a half per cent of the general population in 1769. It is also interesting to check the ratable levels for some prominent Philadelphia revolutionaries not included for study in our group. Similar diversity again emerges. In 1774, for example, Dr. Thomas Cadwalder was assessed £158 10s. George Bryan and Thomas Mifflin both received more modest, but still substantial, assessments of £31 6s and £83 gsy respectively. Joseph Read, on the other hand, was far down the list at only £5 7s. Evaluation of wealth in Chester and Bucks Counties has been made on the basis of farm sizes in 1774 (Chester) and 1779 (Bucks). Again there is a range of property sizes, with a predominance of relatively large holdings. Only a very few Bucks and Chester revolu- tionaries fail to appear on the tax rolls, presumably because they were mere day laborers, indentured servants, or the like. The mean farm size of a Bucks County revolutionary was 405 acres, and the median was 280. In Chester County both averages were about 215 acres. On the other hand, it can be estimated that the average farm size in this part of colonial America was not greater than 150 acres, although definitive comparative data are again not available. Con- tributing to the high average for the Chester County revolutionaries, for example, were John Jacobs, whose 700-acre tract was the largest in his rate and among the largest in the county, and William Mont- gomery, who owned two farms totaling 510 acres. Robert Smith and Benjamin Bartholomew were among the holders of more modest sized property. However, they both came from very old families, and, while owning average sized farms, they were listed on a county silver plate owners list of 1774. In addition, Smith was a contributor to the Hospital. Evidently, as in the city, modest tax assessments did not always indicate modest wealth. Finally, only two Chester 16 Main, 7911. This data must be used with caution because it is for 1769 and is limited to only four wards. I972 THE PENNSYLVANIA REVOLUTIONARIES 97 revolutionaries did not own farms, in a county where Main claims that half the population was landless.17 If a landless proletariat was revolting in Chester County in 1776, they certainly went out of the way to choose bourgeois leaders. In Bucks County, Joseph Hart lived in his ancestral home, "West- minister," on a 540-acre property. John Kirkbride, descendant of a 1681 settler, owned 1,465 acres. He also owned a "mansion" attrac- tive enough to be burned later by the British, and he frequently advertised land for sale in the 'Pennsylvania Qazette. Another adver- tiser was , who owned 540 acres and a mill, as well as land in Philadelphia County. Clearly, in the suburban counties, members of the established gentry joined with substantial "middle- class" farmers in revolutionary activities. The occupations of these revolutionaries generally reflect their bourgeois economic status. Considering the commercial importance of Philadelphia, it is not surprising to find that at least nineteen of them were merchants. One of these merchants was also a part-time lawyer, while three revolutionaries were full-time lawyers. A fifth lawyer was also an iron founder. Other professional men among the revolutionaries were two doctors, two teachers, two surveyors, and a ship's captain. Tradespeople included two druggists, a ropemaker, a baker, a tailor, a grocer, and a hardware dealer. In suburban Phila- delphia and Philadelphia County four revolutionaries were farmers. Finally, Benjamin Franklin must be inadequately classified as a retired printer and a politician. The occupations of fourteen of the fifty-seven revolutionaries from Philadelphia and Philadelphia County are unknown; it is likely that some of them were small tradesmen and laborers. However, the very heterogeneous and rela- tively "middle-class" character of the revolutionaries' occupations as a whole is evident. In rural Chester and Bucks counties, farming was the predomi- nant occupation of the Revolutionary leadership. As was noted above, only a few of these leaders have not been identified as prop- erty owners. In addition, one other revolutionary was a full-time tanner, while others mixed agriculture with the law, medicine, the ministry, merchant trading, or mill operation.

17 Ibid., 33- 98 ROBERT GOUGH January These data on wealth and occupation are necessarily somewhat questionable. Still it should be recognized that the rather diverse and generally substantial backgrounds of the revolutionaries cer- tainly do not rule out the involvement of economic factors from the causes of the Revolution. Even so, the data do suggest that these factors would have had to operate on a much more complicated and subtle level than "upper class" versus "propertyless masses."18 Interrelated with this problem of economic status is the difficult question of social status. Obviously, social status is a factor that is impossible to measure precisely—indeed it depends in part on many of the factors that have already been examined. Additionally, college education is an interesting separate measure that can be applied to this question: if college training in colonial America was perhaps not an important educational experience, it was certainly a mani- festation of elite social status. However, few southeastern Pennsyl- vania, revolutionaries had any experience with higher education. Only two, William Hamilton (Pennsylvania '62) and (Princeton '60), were graduates of American colleges (and Hamilton was the sole individual among the ninety-two revolutionaries who subsequently became a Tory). Rush and Dickinson had studied in Europe, and Dickinson and McKean joined Rittenhouse and William VanHorn, a Bucks County minister, in receiving honorary degrees from American colleges. Only two revolutionaries, Samuel Morris, Sr., and John Coxe, sent their sons to college before the Revolution, and only two, Franklin and Clymer, had achieved the already prestigious position of Trustee of the University of Pennsylvania. In contrast to this relative academic uninvolvement, forty-six and four-tenths per cent of the signers of the Declaration of Independence and forty-eight and seven-tenths per cent of the signers of the United States Constitution had collegiate experience. While it will be shown below that we should not conclude from these figures that the revo- lutionaries were ignorant men, it can certainly be concluded that 18 J. Thomas Scharf and Thompson Westcott, History of Philadelphia, 1604-1884, II, 875-876^, contains an extensive listing of the merchants and tradesmen of colonial Phila- delphia. Occupations can also be determined in some cases from notations on the tax rolls, and from the two valuable city directories published in 1785: Francis White, The Philadelphia Directory (Philadelphia, 1785) and MacPhersorC s Directory for the City and Suburbs of Phil- adelphia . . . (Philadelphia, 1785). 197* THE PENNSYLVANIA REVOLUTIONARIES 99 only a handful of them belonged to the social stratum which attended the colonial colleges in America.19 Another index of social status is participation in voluntary asso- ciations. By itself, such memberships at least show that a person was active in community affairs before the Revolution. Moreover, it is possible tentatively to identify "prestige" organizations and dis- cover the extent of participation in them by the revolutionaries. Not surprisingly, it again appears that that group included a substantial number of men active in civic affairs, but only a sprinkling who belonged to elite social organizations. Of the purely social groups at the pinnacle of Philadelphia society, incomplete information on the dancing Assemblies indicates that only John Kidd may have been a member. Three or four revolutionaries belonged to the Colony in Schuylkill and one of them, its Governor, Samuel Morris, Jr., was also president of the Gloucester Fox Hunting Club. It appears that Samuel Morris, Jr., its wartime commander, and Henry Hill were the only revolutionaries who belonged to the First City Troop.20 Participation on such a limited level suggests that few of them can be considered to have been the eighteenth-century equivalent of "society figures." The less exclusive, ethnic-oriented associations were more popular with these men. Five belonged to the St. George's Society, five to the St. Patrick and Hibernian organizations, and two to the St. An- drew's Society. Only one, Henry Kuhl, was a member of the German Society; however, he was its president. In addition, five revolu- tionaries were members of the quasi-nationalistic Tammany Society, and at least three belonged to the Abolition Society. These were middle-class organizations oriented toward public action or mutual help among the members. Within them, economically and socially rising younger men could establish reputations. Members of the

19 For information on the schools usually attended by Philadelphians, see University of Pennsylvania Biographical Catalogue of the Matriculates of the College . . . 1749-1893 (Phila- delphia, 1894); General Catalogue of , 1746-1906 (Princeton, 1908); Biographical Notices of Graduates of Yale College (New Haven, 1915). 20 A History of the Schuylkill Fishing Company in the State of Schuylkill, 1732-1888 (Phila- delphia, 1889), 338-346; Joseph P. Sims, ed., The Philadelphia Assemblies, 1748-1948 . . . (Philadelphia, 1947), 35^- IOO ROBERT GOUGH January old-line elite social groups, while certainly not altogether absent, were less numerous among the revolutionaries.21 Considering the occupational and economic status we have estab- lished for the revolutionaries, it is not surprising to find that a number of them were prominent in the pre-Revolution Philadelphia business community. For instance, three belonged to the Woolen Manufacturers Association. Cannon, indeed, was secretary of this organization as well as of the American Manufactory, of which Kuhl was manager. Additionally, Owen Biddle was active in the Society for Cultivation of Silk. And no less than twelve revolutionary "traders and merchants'* had been among the four hundred or so Philadelphia businessmen who signed the nonimportation agreement of 1765. This is a fair percentage considering the changes that would naturally occur in eleven years. Returning to the problem of eco- nomic motives behind the Revolution, it would appear that those revolutionaries who were substantial businessmen, for example, would have acted in 1776 out of opposition to imperial economic policies, rather than in response to internal provincial conflict, as has been emphasized in the past. Still another area which involved a substantial number of south- eastern Pennsylvania revolutionaries was the Philadelphia intellec- tual establishment. Besides including two outstanding intellectuals, Franklin and Rittenhouse, the revolutionaries included thirteen members of the American Philosophical Society and sixteen members of the Library Company of Philadelphia. It must be kept in mind that colonial Philadelphia was not a cultural or regal court metrop- olis like London or Paris; even the modest membership fees and the leisure time requirements of these organizations must have distin- guished their membership from the norm in a society based on subsistence agriculture and relatively limited commercial activity.

21 An Historical Catalogue of the St. Andrew's Society of Philadelphia with Biographical Sketches of Deceased Members, 1749-1907 (Philadelphia, 1907), 375-426; Theodore C. Knauff, A History of the Society of the Sons of Saint George ... (n.p., 1923), 196-246; John H. Campbell, History of the Friendly Sons of St. Patrick and of the Hibernian Society . . . (Philadelphia, 1892); Francis von A. Cabeen, "The Society of the Sons of Saint Tammany of Philadelphia," PMHB, XXV (1901), 433. See also Daniel R. Gilbert, "Patterns of Organization and Mem- bership in Colonial Philadelphia Club Life" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1952), and E. Digby Baltzel, Philadelphia Gentlemen: The Making of a National Upper Class (Glencoe, 1958). I972 THE PENNSYLVANIA REVOLUTIONARIES IOI And intellectual interests were not limited to the revolutionaries who lived in Philadelphia: John Sellers of Chester County had worked with Rittenhouse on his observation of Venus experiment of 1769, and Hugh Lloyd, probably with other revolutionaries, was a member of the Library Company of Chester County. The viability of a society is undermined when its leading thinkers become alien- ated, as the French Revolution has taught us; the Pennsylvania Revolution of 1776, where, among the revolutionaries, membership in intellectual associations seems to have been a more significant feature than any economic factor, appears to fit into this pattern also.22 Contrary to the accepted argument, many Pennsylvania revolu- tionaries had been active in political affairs before the Revolution. A "new man" theory has generally dominated the explanation of Pennsylvania public affairs in 1776, but in reality at least twenty- eight of the ninety-two Pennsylvania revolutionaries had held at least one public office before the Revolution.23 Eleven of them had served in the Pennsylvania Assembly, and two in the Assembly. Eleven had been judges of inferior courts, seven had served as county tax assessors, six had sat as justices of the peace, and four had been members of the Philadelphia Common Council. In addition, two had served as county attorneys and one each in offices of county sheriff, overseer of the poor, street commissioner, county commissioner, and county coroner. One other revolutionary, Samuel Fairlamb, was the son of a county sheriff who had also been a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly. Certainly these qualifications do not correlate with Paul Selsam's inference that as a group the members of the Convention possessed neither "knowledge of the principles of government" or "wide prac- tical political experience."24 (His only documentation for this point is the promiscuously quoted diary of the Rev. Francis Alison.)

22 For exhaustive membership lists of these societies see Servants of Mankind: The Amer- ican Philosophical Society . . . (Philadelphia, 1930), 11-40, and "A Chronological Register of the Names of the Members of the Library Company of Philadelphia," Library Company of Philadelphia. 23 Comprehensive and authoritative sources for officeholding data are John Hill Martin, Martin's Bench and Bar of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1883), and the Minutes of the Common Council of the City of Philadelphia, 1704-1776 (Philadelphia, 1847). 24 Selsam, 148. IO2 ROBERT GOUGH January David Hawke goes so far as to say that "Of the 108 men chosen for the Provincial Conference only Benjamin Franklin . . . and Thomas McKean had been prominent in politics."25 These claims have been used as proof of the "radical" nature of the Pennsylvania Revolu- tion. In actuality, the biographical records gathered here reveal that while only a few of the revolutionaries were involved with colonial politics on the level of the Governor's Council or the Assembly leadership, a substantial number were active in public affairs in their local communities. To be sure, if there was a ruling elite or even a ruling class in colonial Pennsylvania, it most certainly did not collec- tively transform itself into the 1776 revolutionaries. Recognizing this fact, however, does not automatically prove a "Cincinatus" explanation for the backgrounds of the revolutionaries. For example, the Provincial Conference membership included John Bull, who had sat on the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County beginning in 1761, and had served as Justice of the Peace from 1770 to the Revolution; Joseph Hart, who had extensive service as Sheriff, Justice of the Peace, and Justice of the Court of Quarter Sessions of Bucks County; Samuel Morris, Sr., who had sat on various Phila- delphia courts, had been repeatedly elected to the Philadelphia Common Council, and had served as County Attorney for Bucks County; and Henry Wynkoop, who had been elected to the Assem- bly, had served as Justice of the Peace, and had sat on the County Court of Bucks County. Among the alleged "inexperienced" delegates to the Constitutional Convention, in addition to some of the persons mentioned above, were John Jacobs of Chester County, who had fourteen years' service in the Assembly, and Benjamin Bartholomew, John Sellers, and John Wilkinson, who also had experience in that body. Seven of the nineteen Chester County revolutionaries had occupied the strategic office of county tax assessor before the Revolution. In sum, information or tax ratables are lacking for only five revolutionaries: Robert Knox, Benjamin Segle, Joseph Matthew, George Gruz, and Joseph Gardiner. Probably these were men of low economic and social status. In general, however, it seems that the "proletariat" character of the Revolutionary leadership should re- ceive little consideration.

25 David Hawke, In the Midst of a Revolution (Philadelphia, 1961), 112. 197* THE PENNSYLVANIA REVOLUTIONARIES IO3 At the other end of the scale, revolutionaries with elite social, economic, and political status included George Clymer, George Gray, Joseph Hart, Samuel Morris, Sr., Samuel Mifflin, and Henry Wyn- koop, as well as Franklin and McKean. Falling somewhat between these groups, the vast bulk of the revolutionaries were men of rela- tively substantial economic position, mature but not advanced age, diverse ethnic and religious backgrounds, some political experience, and a tendency to participate in intellectual associations. In general they could be said to have been "well-to-do/* or "middle class," and their backgrounds support Richard M. Brown's conclusion that "Americans of diverse class and geographical origins did unite against Britain."26 However, it must not be concluded that these findings support any middle-class democracy theory about colonial America. The composition of a Revolutionary leadership group does not directly prove anything about the previous manner or functioning of a society. Moreover, the evidence in this study does not prove or dis- prove any argument about economic, racial, or political tensions in Revolutionary Pennsylvania. The evidence simply points out that there must have been some factors about opposition to Great Britain that were powerful enough to require cooperation by relatively substantial persons of divergent economic, social, and ethnic back- grounds. As Bernard Bailyn has suggested, perhaps all the argu- ments at the time of the Revolution about "home rule" were not "claptrap" after all.27 The diversity in background of these Revolutionary leaders indi- cates that a relatively complex social structure must have developed in Philadelphia by the time of the Revolution. An understanding of the framework of this structure must precede assumptions about the existence of any sort of social or economic groups, and any conflicts among them. Perhaps a social and/or political discontinuity did occur in Pennsylvania in 1776. The materials exist to discover the nature of this discontinuity, and explain the implications for democ- racy in the Pennsylvania, and American, Revolutions of 1776.

University of 'Pennsylvania ROBERT GOUGH

26 Richard M. Brown, review of Jackson Turner Main, The Social Structure of Revolu- tionary America, in William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd series, XXIII (1966), 480. 27 Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge, 1966)'