MY PERSPECTIVE, Gary Damron

Only 13 years after the French and Indian War ended in 1763, American colonists moved from pride at being English to declaring independence. In previous articles we introduced the Enlightenment and the Great Awakening, both of which gave the people confidence to change, either through man’s ability or their God-given destiny.

Another component that led to the Declaration of Independence was governmental practice. Political theories espoused by Englishmen were not actually in use either there or in the colonies. John Dickenson of Pennsylvania had greatly admired Britain’s culture as well as economic and political theory, and he went to London to study law. However, returning around 1757, he concluded that England’s political system was "hopelessly corrupted".

Though there wasn’t an English constitution, each group - monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy - theoretically was represented, based on a tradition of laws and legal precedents. In reality, English government on all levels was run by the aristocracy. Voting was restricted to male landowners, and only the wealthiest held office in both the House of Lords and House of Commons. In other words, the common people were only "virtually" represented by their betters. The monarchs had already forfeited much of their power, and were dependent on Parliament for support.

The political culture in America was set up attempting to copy the English system. All but two colonies had an appointed governor who represented the English monarchy, and a council also appointed by the king. In Rhode Island and Connecticut, the governor and the council were elected. In direct contrast with England, around 80 percent of white males could vote, so colonial assemblies had little resemblance to Parliament where only 20 percent of citizens were voters.

Colonial assemblies had a strong sense of representing the interests of the people. Most initiated major bills and controlled the raising of revenues and appointments of treasurers. Elected officials appeared more interested in serving their constituents than pleasing the governor.

Royal governors, though sometimes incompetent and disinterested, wielded considerable power. They could veto laws, suspend the assembly, or call for a new election. They appointed and dismissed judges. But they lacked military or financial support from England, and often found themselves dependent on the assemblies. A governor was frequently caught in the middle between the English crown and a colonial assembly. And if a governor tried to control the assembly, members of the press in the colonies set off a cry of alarm, making the public aware of infractions and calling for correction. Average tenure for governors was around five years, while the assemblies came to provide more stability than individual governors.

During the 70 or 80 years leading up to the 1760s, a group of Commonwealthmen led by John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon warned that those in authority in England were trying to destroy liberty, and that they were doing this through corruption. John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government justified opposition to the monarchy as upholding the liberty of the people, in order to maintain a proper balance of power. Writings such as these were widely available and were influential in the new land.

In addition, the common person in America found similar principles outlined in newspapers and sermons. As a result, colonists viewed "the people" as protectors of public interests when the government failed to act.

In 1760 in England, William Blackstone’s "Commentaries on the Laws of England" became the accepted standard of governance. It provided the first comprehensive, systematic, and accessible treatise on English common law. It also standardized legal education and brought clarity to legal doctrines based on the 1689 English Bill of Rights, on which Locke based much of his theory.

As we’re starting to see, a series of events and philosophies were converging over nearly a century, which led to familiar words in an American document that reflected directly on these principles. "All men are...endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights. ... to secure these rights, Governments are instituted ..., deriving their powers from the consent of the governed. ... whenever ... Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. ... Governments ...should not be changed for light and transient causes. ... But when a train of abuses ...reduce [to] Despotism, it is their right, [and] duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security." The remainer of our Declaration of Independence lists 29 violations of rights committed by the English government against the colonies.

Foundational ideas, in place in England but never implemented, were that political officials should be trustees for the people, who initially consented to government to protect their freedoms. If officials failed to preserve liberty - or in fact violated it - the people had a right and a responsibility to address it. They fostered the concept that liberty requires a stable rule of law; all peaceful means of change must be tried before force would become an option.

For a time, colonial frustrations were directed at governors and assemblies. Early on, these theories of government - which England had in place but failed to enact - began to serve as a unifying sense of reform in the colonies. By 1776, views and sentiments solidified into a drive for independence and rejection of a corrupt king and Parliament.