"No Tyrant Awes Them": Republican Theory in the Early American
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Wesleyan University The Honors College “No Tyrant Awes Them”: Republican Theory in the Early American Countryside by Arthur M. Halliday Class of 2016 A thesis submitted to the faculty of Wesleyan University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Arts with Departmental Honors from the College of Social Studies Middletown, Connecticut April, 2016 Acknowledgements Thank you to my parents, Paul and Amy Halliday, for being the best people I know. You are why I am who I am, and I love that. Thank you for always challenging me, inspiring me, supporting me, loving me, and for giving me a wonderful childhood. I so enjoy being your son, I love being your friend, and I look forward to all the gracious living to come. Thank you. I love you. Thank you to William and George Halliday for being the best little brothers I could imagine. I love you guys so much. You are the most incredibly smart, interesting, and delightful individuals. I can’t wait to live in your shadows. Thank you to my whole extended family. You tolerated my working over Thanksgiving, you accepted my writing on Christmas, and you’ve always awed me with your love and family spirit. Thank you to my lovely girlfriend, Jamie Ember. You’re always there when I need you, and you have been so incredibly supportive and understanding as I have worked on this thesis. Thank you for hugging me when I need a hug, for talking with me when I need to talk, and for challenging me when I need a challenge. I love you. Thank you to my advisors, John Finn and Don Moon. You have pushed me when I needed pushing and helped me when I needed help. I owe this thesis to your guidance, and I cannot thank you enough for the time you have spent reading my writing and answering my questions. Thank you for a wonderful experience. Thank you to my roommates: Jess Zalph, Mackenzie Schlosser, Zarek Siegel, and, of course, Casey Downey. You are wonderful friends, impressive people, and great roommates. I have so enjoyed living with you, and I can’t wait to see where you go and what you do after Wes. Thank you to the College of Social Studies and the dear friends I have made in CSS for an incomprehensibly amazing college experience. Thank you, especially, to Mike Greenwald and Deren Ertas for being incredible and supportive friends. Thank you to Throw Culture—the best group of people I may ever know. You have been the highlight of my Wesleyan experience. Thank you especially to my fellow Captains: Ari Lewenstein, Meg Narwold, Mira Klein, and Walker Reiss. Thank you to the many wonderful professors I have had at Wesleyan. Thank you, finally, to Richard Linenthal and Larry Wallace. You are the most incredible uncles in the world. Thank you for smothering me with love, for giving me a place to spend Thanksgiving, for showing me the world, and for always giving me sage advice. You are true role models. I love you. 1 Table of Contents 3 Introduction: Lower-Class Political Theory and the Practical Polity 14 Chapter One: Geopolitical Inequalities and Mass Political Action in Colonial America British Mob Politics in the Colonial City 20 Adapting a Mass Politics for the Countryside 39 Regulator Movements and the Rural Mob 42 A New Rural Tradition 50 51 Chapter Two: The New Gentry and Radical Republican Resistance Adapting Political Participation for a New Republic 55 Pennsylvania’s Democratic Experiment: An Illustration of Post-Revolutionary Problems 62 Regulation and Rural Republicanism in Massachusetts 73 The Consequences of Radical Political Participation 88 91 Chapter Three: The Constitutional Counterrevolution and the Reification of Federalist Republicanism The Constitutional Convention: An Ideologically Exclusive Gathering 94 Selling the Constitution: No Voice for the Rural Resistor 104 The Anti-Federalist Case and the Exclusive Binary 112 Rushed Ratification and the New Order 116 121 Chapter Four: The Pennsylvania Rebellions and the Dominance of Federalist Ideology Whiskey Rebellion, Non-Violence, and a Test of the Federal Order 123 Fries’ Rebellion: Refinement and a Final Assertion of the Republicanism of Rural Resistance 136 The Federalist Response: A Rejection of Alternative Republicanism 144 Whiskey Rebels and Fries’ Followers: What Did They Stand For? 145 149 Conclusion: What Can We Learn From a Losing Battle? 157 Bibliography 2 Introduction Lower-Class Political Theory and the Practical Polity Shays’ Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion, and Fries’ Rebellion constitute a wonderful contradiction to the narrative of American freedom and democracy. In many ways, the American Revolution was a watershed moment. It was a popular uprising, a rights-based revolt that demanded self-determination and an end to the tyranny of rule from afar. The United States was born with an impossible promise— to fulfill the diverse visions of American revolutionaries. In many ways, the fledgling nation managed to live up to its founding. However, that mass resistance movements—engaging in violent action against republican governments—continued to express serious grievances about the state of political participation and popular representation after the Revolution suggests that the flaws in the American polity ran deeper than the form or locus of government. The base of rural revolutionary support was a desire for a changed and improved relationship with government and those in power. For this important segment of the American population, the Revolution failed to bring about sufficient change in political power dynamics. Actions-Based Historical Investigation and Implicit Political Theory Historical investigations of the Revolutionary era unearth a plethora of sources. Letters, diaries and newspaper clippings pertaining to the revered “Founding Fathers” abound. However, it is much more difficult to find first-hand accounts of the experiences of rural resistors in 18th-century America. Their petitions may survive, 3 but their correspondence and diaries were not as obviously valuable as those of the Constitution’s framers. Thus, the source materials from the period prove a point about the social dynamics of the time. The famous men of the era, those who shaped policy in state capitals and played important parts in the Revolution and the Constitution’s framing, saved their letters and diaries—or had them saved by others. Such was the importance of the early American gentry. Such was the primacy of great men in the dominant republican thinking of the time. The men engaging in acts of rural resistance were not famous or glamorous. Most knew how to read and write, but they did not save their letters with an eye towards posterity—nor did their contemporaries think to do so. Little survives to give the modern historian a first-hand account of the political thinking of backcountry rebels and yeoman tax resistors. With this sourcing problem in mind, histories of republican resistance movements must rely on information from oppositional sources and the occasional surviving letter, newspaper article, or record of a speech. To augment limited source material, this thesis engages in an actions-based historical analysis. Human actions are always meaningful. They reveal implicit attitudes, explicit thinking, and the priorities, needs, and beliefs of their doers. As a theory of an alternative, rural republicanism developed and took form in resistance movements, its ideas transitioned from being implicit in the actions of resistors to being more explicitly, clearly, and articulately expressed in petitions and the core ideologies of resistance movements. Federalist thinkers expressed their political theories in writings that survive, providing an explicit explanation of their republicanism. Rural resistors invite a more practically based analysis of their grievances, goals, and deeds. In Ronald Formisano’s history of early American populist movements, For the People, the author explains that 4 populism is an inclusive and imprecise term. The best way to study it, Formisano asserts, is to study populist movements.1 Movements force a coherence and clarity of populist thinking, as they express it through actions. These actions, taken by men marginalized by their political systems, elucidate an implicit strain of republican theory that runs throughout rural movements. Because this theory stems directly out of the actions it inspired, it is a highly practical theory. It is purposefully pragmatic and actionable, while hinting at higher levels of republican thinking. Moving Beyond Beard, Finding an Counterpart to Maier, McDonald, and Wills This thesis owes a tremendous debt to the work of Charles Beard—and to those who have proceeded to disprove aspects of his conclusions. Beard’s An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States was, for a time in the early 20th century, the leading analysis of the counterrevolutionary Constitution, the class conflicts of early American politics, and the power dynamics that marginalized rural farming communities. However, in volumes such as Robert Brown’s Charles Beard and the Constitution, Staughton Lynd’s Class Conflict, Slavery, and the United States Constitution, and Forrest McDonald’s We the People: The Economic Origins of the Constitution, deeper investigations into the state of post-Revolutionary America showed Beard’s conclusions to be lacking in nuance and excessively concerned with expressing a complete damnation of the Federalist project. The moderated finding that Brown’s analysis supports is that Beard’s broad points—that economic disparities played a part in Constitution-making, that whole classes of people were excluded from the process, 1 Ronald P. Formisano, For the People: American Populist Movements from the Revolution to the 5 and that a socio-political elite exerted great control over the American polity—are instructive and must be taken seriously.2 The gist of Beard’s thesis provides a base for critically examining the founding period, and challenges historians to find ways to provide a voice for populations that were often formally voiceless, and to which posterity has relatively little access.