Revolutionary-Era Republicanism As Championed by Nathaniel Macon and John Randolph of Roanoke
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Mississippi eGrove Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate School 2013 Revolutionary-Era Republicanism As Championed By Nathaniel Macon And John Randolph Of Roanoke Barbara Hensley Shepard University of Mississippi Follow this and additional works at: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd Part of the History Commons Recommended Citation Shepard, Barbara Hensley, "Revolutionary-Era Republicanism As Championed By Nathaniel Macon And John Randolph Of Roanoke" (2013). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 641. https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/641 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at eGrove. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of eGrove. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REVOLUTIONARY-ERA REPUBLICANISM AS CHAMPIONED BY NATHANIEL MACON AND JOHN RANDOLPH OF ROANOKE A dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Mississippi Barbara Hensley Shepard March 2013 Copyright © 2013 by Barbara Hensley Shepard All rights reserved ABSTRACT This work concentrates on the formation of a uniquely American version of republicanism and two men who staunchly adhered to its tenets long after it had fallen out of fashion. Revolutionary-era republicanism provided a useful set of principles for the colonists of British North America as they moved toward independence, throughout the Revolutionary War and into the nineteenth century. This work attempts to show the roots of American republicanism and how during the first decades of the nineteenth century the concept was adopted and adapted by those in the government. Nathaniel Macon of North Carolina and the Virginian, John Randolph of Roanoke, were two of the staunchest supporters of Revolutionary-era republicanism, and they are used to show the waxing and waning of their principles. Both were chosen because they dedicated their entire political careers to Revolutionary-era republicanism and due to the lack of scholarship concerning Macon and the somewhat distorted view of Randolph. By concentrating on issues that are closely related to the early republican ideals, this work shows the rise and fall of its popularity and the continuity of support by Macon and Randolph. Perhaps the two dedicated statesmen will be viewed in a more positive and accurate light and the republicanism as a political concept can be seen as an ever changing and evolving set of ideals. ii DEDICATION This work is dedicated to Otis Shepard, my Daddy-O. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all of those who have assisted me in completing my dissertation. The forbearance and encouragement of my colleagues, friends, and family has been amazing. I am deeply indebted to the Shaw family in Linville, North Carolina, for providing me with a peaceful retreat in which to write. The greatest debt is owed to my husband for reading my many drafts with his exacting and critical eye and for never losing faith in my abilities even when I considered giving up. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………………….. ii DEDICATION……………………………………………………………………………iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ……………………………………………………………...iv INTRODUCTION .……………………………………………………………………….1 CHAPTER I. FORMULATION OF A UNIQUELY AMERICAN STRAIN OF REPUBLICANISM AND PUTTING THOSE IDEALS INTO PRACTICE……………17 CHAPTER II. FEDERALIST DOMINANCE ..................................................................73 CHAPTER III. REPUBLICAN STALWARTS DURING THE JEFFERSON ADMINISTRATION .......................................................................................................119 CHAPTER IV. REVOLUTIONARY-ERA REPUBLICANISM DECLINES ...............176 BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………………………....219 VITA ................................................................................................................................227 INTRODUCTION In the mid-eighteenth century, Americans began to develop their own unique view of a just and equitable form of government. Subsequent generations have contested the origin and meanings of the colonists’ ideology. Prior to the 1960s, the predominant historical interpretation of pre-Revolutionary political thought credited John Locke with providing the basis for Americans’ ideas concerning the proper role of government in their lives. “Lockean liberalism” seemed a sensible way to explain the character of the American struggle for independence. Proponents, and there were many, of this interpretation claimed that the colonists in North America already exhibited many liberal ideals prior to their mid-eighteenth century difficulties with Britain. The colonists were ambitious, revealed a high degree of self-interest, and economically were moving steadily toward capitalism. Viewing the American Revolution through the spectrum of Locke’s liberal ideals allowed Americans to see their war for independence as a rather moderate or tame revolution, without the terror and excesses of the French Revolution. This view centering on the importance of Lockean influences is often referred to as the Hartzian paradigm due to the influence of Louis Hartz. It was a popular and widely accepted interpretation that garnered broad support with Progressive historians in the 1 mid-twentieth century. Even as the liberal model gained credence, another, and even more all encompassing paradigm began to take shape.1 In the late 1960s, Bernard Bailyn presented a rival to the liberal interpretation of the previous decade. In his research, Bailyn “discovered” what he believed to be the lynchpin of the changing philosophy of American colonists in the years leading up to the Revolutionary War. According to Bailyn, republicanism was the overarching concept that disgruntled British subjects in North America fashioned and its tenets resonated with inhabitants in all thirteen colonies. Although Bailyn did not employ the term republicanism in The Ideological Origins of the American Republic, he presented ideas other than Locke’s. Bailyn concluded that the powerful rhetoric of the era, peppered with words such as liberty and power, greatly influenced the colonists who had begun to fear that Parliament was undermining their freedom and rights as English subjects. On the heels of Bailyn’s book came Gordon Woods’s The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1789, further solidifying the newly emerging republican paradigm. With the publication of J.G.A. Pocock’s Machiavellian Moment in 1975, the elements of 1 Louis Hartz, The Liberal Tradition in America: An Interpretation of American Political Thought since the Revolution (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1955) 140; Hartz’s interpretation of the nature of American identity gained precedence over the earlier Beardian model and garnered currency with other mid-twentieth century historians. Daniel Boorstin, “American Liberalism,” Commentary, 20 (July 1955): 99-101. Boorstin concluded that Locke’s liberal ideas were already a very important part of the American social fabric during the pre-Revolutionary years; Richard Hofstadter, The Progressive Historians: Turner, Beard and Parrington (New York: Knopf, 1968), 446-8. Hofstadter maintained that Locke was indeed important to understanding the tempered character of the American Revolution. 2 republicanism were spelled out in even more detail and the importance of Locke further diminished.2 As republicanism became the dominant means of explaining the mindset of Revolutionary America, varying versions began to appear and historians began applying republican ideology to many different aspects of colonial and early American life. As the paradigm rapidly gained popularity, arguments concerning the origin and nature of republicanism emerged and grew. Was it born solely of the conservative tradition of British “Country versus Court” politics or did it include liberal ideas? Did the ancient republics of Greece and Rome provide a model for American republican ideas prior to the Revolution, or were the references to the ancient republics merely window dressing? These are all important questions; however, they are not the focus of this dissertation. Instead, the purpose of this work will be two-fold. Initially, it will focus on the birth and career of American Revolutionary-era republicanism, beginning with the late colonial period and ending in the 1830s with retirement from public life and deaths of Nathaniel Macon and John 2 Bernard Bailyn, Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967); Bernard Bailyn, “The Central Themes of the American Revolution: An Interpretation,” in Stephen G Kurtz and James H Hutson, eds., Essays on the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press), 1973; Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1969); J.G.A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press), 1975. Bernard Bailyn, his student Gordon Wood, and J.G.A. Pocock, within in less than a decade, shifted the emphasis from John Locke and his liberal views to republicanism. Bailyn began the process by showing the influence of other pamphleteers and writings, particularly the seventeenth- century Country versus Court literature. He did not deny the influence of Locke in the pre-Revolutionary psyche; although, he did considered him a less important factor than the Progressives had. Wood further relegated Locke to the sidelines