Reassessing Bernard Bailyn's the Ideological Origins of the American Revolution on the Occasion of Its Jubilee
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Reassessing Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution on the Occasion of its Jubilee gordon s. wood ERNARD BAILYN’s Ideological Origins of the American B Revolution has stood up well over the past fifty years, and I believe it still remains the most important book ever written about the American Revolution. This issue of the NEQ recog- nizing its jubilee suggests as much. Bailyn’s book opened up entirely new ways of looking at the Revolution that have rever- berated throughout both the scholarly and the public worlds over the past half century. Even many of those who criticize or dismiss it have been influenced by it, often without realizing or acknowledging that influence. When Bailyn’s book appeared, it was immediately viewed as the culmination of a long-existing tradition of interpreting the causes of the Revolution in terms of ideas rather than social conflict. As Bailyn himself said in the foreword to his book, his study of the American pamphlets written in the years leading up to the Declaration of Independence “confirmed my rather old-fashioned view that the American Revolution was above else an ideological, constitutional, political struggle and not pri- marily a controversy between social groups undertaken to force changes in the organization of the society or economy.”1 From the very beginning the revolutionaries knew that their Revolution was different from other revolutions. “In other 1Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, enlarged ed. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1992), x. The New England Quarterly, vol. XCI, no. 1 (March 2018). C 2018 by The New England Quarterly. All rights reserved. doi:10.1162/TNEQ_a_00661. 78 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/tneq_a_00661 by guest on 02 October 2021 REASSESSING BAILYN’S IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS 79 revolutions,” said William Vans Murray in 1787, “the sword has been drawn by the arms of offended freedom, under an oppression that threatened the vital powers of society.”2 But this seemed hardly true of the American Revolution. There was little of the legendary tyranny and the social misery that had so often driven desperate peoples into revolution. White American colonists were not an oppressed people; they had no crushing chains to throw off. Indeed, the Americans knew they were freer and more prosperous than any other people in the eighteenth-century world. To its victims, the loyalists, the Revolution was truly incomprehensible. Never in history, said the tory Daniel Leonard, John Adams’s newspaper opponent in 1775, was there ever so much rebellion with so “little real cause.”3 Since the objective social reality seemed incapable of explain- ing the Revolution, accounting for the upheaval has never been easy, either for the contemporaries or for many subsequent historians. Because the American colonists were not suffering from actual oppression, many interpreters concluded that they must have reasoned themselves into revolution. The Revolution thus became essentially an intellectual affair, an endorsement and justification of the society that had naturally developed in America since the settlements of the seventeenth century. Be- cause the American Revolution was designed not to change but to preserve the society, it seemed to be very much a moderate, even conservative affair, especially in contrast to the turbulent and violent French Revolution that followed. By the late nineteenth century, this intellectualist interpreta- tion was summed up about as fully and frankly as possible by 2[William Vans Murray], Political Sketches, Inscribed to the Excellency John Adams (London, 1787), 48. 3[Daniel Leonard], “Massachusettesis,” January 9, 1775, in John Adams: Revolution- ary Writings, 1755–1775, ed. Gordon S. Wood (New York: Library of America, 2011), 1: 364. See also Douglass Adair and John A. Schutz, eds., Peter Oliver’s Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View (San Marino, CA: Huntington Li- brary, 1963), 3, where Oliver expressed his amazement at this “unnatural Rebellion” that had occurred among a people who suffered from no “severe Oppressions” indeed, “had been indulged with every Gratification that the most froward [sic] Child could wish for.” Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/tneq_a_00661 by guest on 02 October 2021 80 THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY Moses Coit Tyler, the presumptive founder of American Stud- ies. The American Revolution, said Tyler, was “preeminently a revolution caused by ideas and pivoted on ideas.” All revolu- tions contained ideas, but in those other revolutions, like that of the French, the ideas had been mobilized only when the so- cial reality had caught up with them, only when the ideas had been given meaning and force by “real evils.” The American Revolution, said Tyler, had been different. It was directed “not against tyranny inflicted, but only against tyranny anticipated.” Hence the American Revolution had been “a strife of ideas,... in which the marshalling of arguments not only preceded the marshalling of armies, but often exceeded them in impression upon the final result.”4 By the 1920s, this traditional intellectual interpretation of the origins of the Revolution had been refined and transformed into the formal discourse of constitutional and natural rights theories. These interpretations saw the Revolution as a high- level act of enlightened constitutional reasoning. In fact, schol- ars in government departments in the 1920s and 30s, such as Andrew McLaughlin, Edwin S. Corwin, Charles McIlwain, and Benjamin F. Wright, were writing some of the best work ever done on the constitutional and political ideas of the Revolution. At the same time as these intellectual and constitutional in- terpretations were being developed and refined, they faced a powerful challenge from the emergence of new theories of hu- man behavior—a challenge that forever changed the nature of history-writing. Marx, Freud, and modern behaviorist social sci- ence told scholars that they had to rethink the role of ideas in human behavior. More often than not, it was claimed, ideas were simply epiphenomenal rationalizations of the underlying interests, passions, and drives that actually determined human behavior. This was all part of a massive revolt against formalism that took place in the latter part of the nineteenth century.5 4Moses Coit Tyler, The Literary History of the American Revolution, 1763–1783 (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1897), 1:8–9. 5Morton White, Social Thought in America: The Revolt Against Formalism (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957). Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/tneq_a_00661 by guest on 02 October 2021 REASSESSING BAILYN’S IDEOLOGICAL ORIGINS 81 Consequently, beginning around 1900 and coinciding with the Progressive Era, several generations of academic historians sought to show that the Revolution was anything but a high- minded act of enlightened reason. All that they had learned about the psychology and sociology of human behavior demon- strated that the simple-minded notion, that people’s professed beliefs—“no taxation without representation” or “devotion to our country”—were the actual motives for the colonists’ be- havior, could never be convincing. For these scientifically savvy Progressive historians, the assumption that formally expressed ideas were the causes of people’s actions was utterly naïve and unrealistic. Tough-minded realists like the British historian Lewis Namier were always there to set scholars right. “What matters most,” said Namier, “is the underlying emotions, the music, to which ideas are a mere libretto, often of a very infe- rior quality.”6 Everyone who had any sense knew that what politicians claimedintheCongressional Record, for example, was not re- ally what was going on. One had to go into the backrooms to discover political reality. As Charles Beard, the most famous of these Progressive historians pointed out, previous scholars had assumed that ideas were “entities, particularities, or forces, ap- parently independent of all earthly considerations coming un- der the head of ‘economic.’” It was Beard’s aim, as it was the aim of many of his contemporaries, to bring into historical con- sideration “those realistic features of economic conflict, stress, and strain” that previous interpreters of the Revolution had largely ignored.7 The result was an extraordinary profusion of books over the first half of the twentieth century that sought to explain the Revolution in terms of socio-economic relationships and interests rather than in terms of ideas. These Progressive historians knew that many ideas had been expressed by the Revolutionaries, and these ideas had to be accounted for. However prevalent, the ideas never expressed 6Sir Lewis Namier, Personalities and Power (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1955), 2. 7Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (New York: Macmillan, 1935), x, viii. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/tneq_a_00661 by guest on 02 October 2021 82 THE NEW ENGLAND QUARTERLY anything meaningful about their users, and, as the best so- cial science of the day claimed, they could never be taken at face value. Consequently, these Progressive historians tended to treat all ideas as propaganda, that is, as ideas self-consciously used by agitators to manipulate and shape public opinion. The distinguished historian Carl Becker even believed that the Dec- laration of Independence could be best understood as propa- ganda. All the indictments of the king were simply contrived weapons, conjured up to justify a rebellion whose sources lay elsewhere. In fact, Becker suggested that the colonists even regarded the natural rights philosophy of John Locke and other serious thinkers as a legal brief that they had adapted to make their case. “Thus step by step, from 1764 to 1776, the colonists,” said Becker, “modified their theory to suit their needs.”8 Many of the ideas voiced by the Revolutionaries were ex- pressed in such bombastic and overwrought language that they had to be propaganda; otherwise it was impossible to take them seriously.