"See Locke on Government": The Two Treatises and the American Revolution

Field: Arts and Humanities (Social Sciences)

"SeeLockeonGovernment": TheTwoTreatises andtheAmericanRevolution STEVEN M. DWORETZ rdadtheTercentenarycelebrationofthepublicationofJohnLocke's TwoTreatisesofGovernmentoccurredinthefirsthalfofthiscentury,a discussionofthereceptionoftheTwoTreatisesineighteenth-century Americawouldhavebeenbriefindeed.OnecouldsimplyciteMerle Curti'sdiscussionof"theGreatMr.Locke,America'sPhilosopher";or VernonParrington'sadoptionofLocke'sSecondTreatiseas"thetext- bookoftheAmericanRevolution,"orJohnC.Miller'sassertionthatthe politicalthoughtoftheAmericanRevolutioncouldbesummarizedas "anexegesisuponLocke,"whoseSecondTreatiseservedastheRevolu- tionists'"'partyline.'"Insum,theprevailingscholarlyconsensussuggestedthatweneedn 'tgobeyondtheSecondTreatiseinordertounder- standAmericanRevolutionarythought.1 If,however,theTercentenaryhadoccurredsometimeafter1970,a discussionofthereceptionoftheTwoTreatisesineighteenth-century AmericawouldhavebeenequallybriefÂ—notbecauseofLocke'sunchal- lengedimportance,butbecauseofhisirrelevance(orworse)intheAmer- icanRevolutionarycontext.ScholarslikeBernardBailynandJ.G.A. Pocockhadtransformedthehistoriographielandscape.2Onceagainyou couldcapturetheessenceofthe(new)prevailingscholarlyconsensus withafewjudiciouscitations:forexample,StanleyKatz,whoinsisted thatLockehadbeen"anegligibleinfluenceuponAmericanpolitical 101 102 / DWORETZ thoughtbefore1776";orJohnDunn,whodeclaredthat"infewcases" couldtheRevolution"possiblyhavebeenthoughttohavebeeninany senseabouttheTwoTreatisesofGovernmentofJohnLocke."3 Indeed,by1975theinterpretationoftheroleofLockeanideasinthe developmentofAmericanRevolutionarythoughthadshifted180degees fromMillertoPocock.MillercalledLocke"theguideandprophet"of theRevolution;hisSecondTreatisefurnished"'theprinciplesof1776.'" Pocock,however,helpedtoredefineRevolutionarythoughtintermsof ananti-liberal,"republican,"or"civichumanist,"tradition.Heargued thatLocke"doesnotcontributedirectly"tothattraditionandeven suggestedthatweshould"allot[Locke]aplace,anddebateitsmagni- tude,amongthattradition'sadversaries."Inwhatmustsurelyrepresent themostdramaticreversaloffortunesinthehistoryofpoliticalthought, the"guideandprophet"oftheRevolutionhadthusbecometheRevolution 'sforemostideologicalnemesis(Miller,170-71;Pocock,424). Ihavewrittenelsewhereaboutthishistoriographierevolutionandthe historicalandtheoreticalrelationshipbetweenLocke'spoliticaltheory andAmericanRevolutionarythought.4Inthepresentessay,Ishallcon- centrateontheSecondTreatiseintheRevolution.Ingeneral,thewrit- ingsfromtheRevolutionÂ—pamphlets,broadsides,newspapers,ser- mons,officialdocuments,etc.Â—donotsupporttherevisionists'claims ofhistoricalhostilitytoLockeandreverenceforcivicrepublicanism.5 ConsiderthemostcrucialtopicsofRevolutionarydiscourse:religious liberty,taxation,consent,thelimitsofcivilauthorityperse,theright anddutyofrevolution,theultimatesovereigntyofthepeople.Whenthe Revolutionistsdiscussedtheseissues,theyconsistentlyframedtheirargumentsinthelanguageandtheoryof "LockeonGovernment"(asthey calledtheSecondTreatise).ThesewereLockeanissues,andtheRevolu- tioniststookLockeanpositionsonthem.Indeed,from1760to1776, frompulpittopamphlet,theRevolutionistscited(andotherwise employed)Lockefarmorefrequentlythananyothernon-Biblical source.ThesourcesofAmericanrepublicanism,ontheotherhand,did notevencomeclosetoLockeinthisregard. Howthendidtherevisionistpositiongainanycredence?Primarily,as weshallsee,bymeansofspecificÂ—andproblematicÂ—interpretationsof politicaltheory.Insomecasestheseinterpretationscannotwithstand closeanalysesoftherelevanttexts;atothertimes,theyarehistorically inappropriatefortheperiodunderinvestigation.Forexample,theexclu- sionofLockeanliberalismfromAmericanRevolutionarythought dependedtheoreticallyuponahostileinterpretationofLocke,seeinghis liberalismatitsworst,as"possessiveindividualism"andthecorrupt apologyforthe"spiritofcapitalism."ThisistheLockewhoemerges LockeonGovernment / 103 fromthecuriouslyconvergentinterpretationsofC.B.Macpherson (fromtheleft)andLeoStrauss(fromtheright).6Itisthis"bourgeois Locke"Â—theLockewhoisassociatedexclusivelywith"commerce"Â— whoplaystheideologicalvillaininPocock'sparadigmaticreinterpretationofeighteenth -centuryAnglo-Americanpoliticalthoughtasthe strugglebetweenother-regardingvirtue(civicrepublicanism)andself- regardingcommerce(Lockeanliberalism).Therevisionists,moreover, donotconsiderthehighlycontroversialstatusofthisinterpretation amongLockescholars.Theyseemtotakeitforgranted,withoutpausing toconsider1)alternativeinterpretationsofLocke,or2)thepossibility thattwentieth-centuryscholarstroubledbytheconsequencesofthree hundredyearsofcapitalismandeighteenth-centurycolonistsinterested inrevolutionmightnotreadandinterpretLocke'sseventeenth-century textinthesameway.InjudgingtheroleofthetextintheAmerican Revolution,itisthereadingoftherevolutionariesthatisrelevant,evenif itwereshowntobeerroneous.Butbyandlarge,therevisionistshavenot soughttoidentifythatreading.7 Iftherevisionists'readingofLockehasbeenuncriticallyhostile,their readingofthetextualsourcesofAmericanrepublicanismhasoftenbeen equallyuncritical,orunrigorous,thoughfarfromhostile.Cato'sLet- ters,theacknowledgedprimarytextualsourceofAmericanrepublican- ism,hasbeenpresumedtoexpressidealsrootedintheancientpolis,but itreadsmorelikeaprospectusforLeviathan.Cato,thevirtuousalterna- tivetoLocke,allegedlybelieves"thatallmenarenaturallygoodandthat citizensbecamerestlessonlywhenoppressed."8ThetextualCato,how- ever,insiststhat"themakingoflawssupposesallmennaturally wicked."9Virtueisaniceideal,especiallyappealingtoourcontempo- raries,bothoftheleftandoftheright,whoaretroubledbythecommer- cialegoismofmodernAmericanculture.ButitisinsufficientforCato: inthetextthatissaidtohavebeen"oftheutmostimportanceinthe creationofAmericanrepublicanism"(Shalhope,58),10only"fearand selfishconsiderationscankeepmenwithinanyreasonablebounds"(Let- ter75,3:76).AswithHobbes,civilsocietydependsupon"theterrorof thelaws"(Letter40,2:54). Therevisionistshavetendedtotreatrepublicanismitselfuncritically, indeedreverently.Thepurifyingdoctrineofcommunitarianvirtueprom- isedhistoriographieredemptionofwhatJohnPatrickDigginshasso aptlycalled"thelostsoulofAmericanpolitics""fromthehedonistic clutchesofliberalism.YetAmericanrepublicanismhasitsdarkside, aboutwhichitscontemporaryproponentshavethusfarbeenlargely silent.TheconflictrelevanttoAmericanrepublicanismisnotbetween virtueandcommerce,butbetweenvirtueandliberty.Indeed,JudithN. 104 / DWORETZ Shklarhaspointedtoaserious"threattopersonalfreedomandjustice" inrepublicanism's"emphasisonmartialdiscipline,socialcohesion,politicalagreement ,andconformityasrequirementsforpublicpolicy."12 Pocockhimselfrespectsthehazardsofvirtue.Inthepenultimatepara- gaphofTheMachiavellianMoment,afterhavingelevated"Machiavelli attheexpenseofLocke"intheAmericanfoundingdoctrine,hewarns that"theidealofvirtueishighlycompulsive"andthushostiletoindivid- ualliberty.13Thiswarning,however,seemstohavebeenmissedby scholarswhosehostilitytoLockeanliberalism,astheyunderstoodit,left themvulnerabletoMachiavelliantemptation. Insum,therevisionistspurgedLockefromthedoctrineoftheAmeri- canRevolution,thusrewritingachapterinthehistoryofpolitical thought,inpartbyfailingtotakepoliticaltheoryseriously.Introduce theinterpretativedisciplineofpoliticaltheory,however,andtheimpressivestructureoftherepublicanrevisionappearstorestprecariouslyupon aquestionable,hostileinterpretationofLocke'spoliticaltheoryand somewishfulthinkingabouttheprincipalsourceofAmericanrepubli- canism.Itrevealsalsoatendency,perhapsunconscious,toseekhistori- callegitimacyforcontemporarypoliciesandprogramsinthefounding politicalideology,atendencythatmakestheinterpretationofAmerican Revolutionarythoughtmorethanmerelyanantiquarianconcern.Forif, asIbelieve,Locke'sliberalism,properlyunderstood,istheonlypolitical philosophytojustifyandrequireÂ—asanintegral(andnotmerelyadhoc) componentofacomprehensiveworld-viewÂ—limitedgovernment,reli- gioustoleration,andresistancetotyranny,thenafoundingdoctrine withoutLockecannotserveasasourceoflegitimacyforlibertyinthe present.Whetherornotthatinterpretationisaccepted,however,itis obviousthatwecannotunderstandthepoliticalideologyoftheAmeri- canRevolutionistswithoutunderstandinghowtheyunderstood"Locke onGovernment,"thesourcetheyidentifyasmostsignificantfortheir writings. Intheremainderofthisessay,IshalltrytoshowexactlyhowLocke's politicaltheoryinformedtheRevolutionaryargument,especiallytheway theSecondTreatisewasusedinthesecularwritingsoftheAmerican Revolutionists.ManyimportantaspectsofLocke'sphilosophywere widelyknownandhighlyesteemedinNorthAmericafordecadespriorto theRevolution,however.14TheNewEnglandclergy,inparticular,began theideologicalpreparationofthepeoplewellbeforethe"longtrainof abuses"begantounfold.Theministershadread,understood,andsym- pathizedwithLocke;andtheyhadbeenpreachingthefundamentalsof LockeanpoliticaltheoryformanyyearsbeforeParliamenttrieditshand attaxreform.15AsClintonRossiterputit,theNewEnglandministers, LockeonGovernment / 105 who"gavethefirstandmostcordialreception"toLocke'sarguments, regularlyfedtheircongregations"doses"ofLocke'spoliticaltheoryina "scripturalspoon"(53,237).Ibelievewecantracetheministers'striking propensitytocite"LockeonGovernment"notmerelytothecircumstantialutilityofLocke 'sargument,butalsototheirphilosophicalaffinity forthetheisticworld-viewinwhichthatargumentisintegrallyembed- ded.IcallthatLockeanworld-view"theisticliberalism"Â—asdistin- guishedfrom"bourgeoisliberalism"Â—andIbelieveitemergesfromtheir carefulstudyofLocke'swritingsonpolitics,epistemology,toleration, andreligion."LockerodeintoNewEnglandonthebacksofMosesand theProphets"(Rossiter,40),andnotasaventurecapitalist. AsweturntotheroleoftheSecondTreatiseintheRevolutionary argumentandinthe"secular"literature,weshallcontinuetonotethe conspicuousabsenceofthebourgeoisLockefromthediscourse.Chapter Five("OfProperty")oftheSecondTreatiseisthelocusclassicusof possessiveindividualism,thestrongholdofthebourgeoisLocke.YetI havefoundonlytwocitationsofChapterFiveintheAmericanwritings, secularorclerical,andonlyoneofthese(BostonEveningPost,#764, April2,1750)wascorrectinitscitation.JohnLathrop,aminister, quotedLockeinasermon,alsociting"LockeonGovernment,Chapter Five"asthesource.ButthetranscribedpassagewasactuallyfromChap- terEleven("OftheExtentoftheLegislativePower").16Sothebourgeois LockedidnotinformtheRevolutionaryargument.Thesectionsofthe SecondTreatisemostoftencited,quoted(withorwithoutquotation marksorattribution),orverycloselyparaphrasedintheRevolutionary writingsdealtinsteadwiththeextentoflegislativepower,thedifference betweentyrantsandmagistrates,theright,duty,andcompetenceofthe peopletojudgetheconductofgovernment,andthedissolutionofgov- ernmentandconsequentreversionofsovereigntytothepeople.The RevolutionistsappealedtoLockeasanauthorityonconstitutionalpoli- ticsandrevolution. Thiswastrueeventhoughtheyfrequentlyarguedaboutproperty itselfÂ—or,moreprecisely,aboutthe"inseparable"issuesof"libertyand property."AstheReverendGadHitchcockwarnedin1774,"Ourconten- tionisnotabouttrifles,butaboutlibertyandproperty."17Orasthe ReverendWilliamGordonputitlaterthatyear,"Itisnotconquest,but libertyandpropertythatareatstake!"18Buttheissueindisputewasnot therightofthesubjecttoappropriatefromnature,buttherightofthe governmenttoexpropriatethesubject.Accordingly,theRevolutionists didnotcalluponthebourgeoisLocketojustifyunlimitedappropriation; theyusedLocke'spoliticaltheorytodefinetheinherentmorallimitsof civilauthoritywithrespecttoliberty(civilaswellasreligious)andprop- 106 / DWORETZ erty,andtojustifyarmedresistanceandrevolutionwhengovernment exceeds,orthreatenstoexceed,thoselimits.Republicanideology,we shouldnote,couldnotfurnisheffectivetheoreticalshelteragainstParlia- ment'sassaultuponthelibertyandpropertyofthecolonistsor,forthat matter,againstthedangerousprincipleofillimitableParliamentarysov- ereigntyuponwhichtheStampActandotherrevenuepolicieswere explicitlybased.Todefendlibertyandproperty,then,theoppositionto ParliamentturnedtoLocke,nottoCato. Indeed,by1747"LockeonGovernment"wasalreadybeingcitedto justifyorganizedandevenviolentpoliticalprotestindisputesoverlib- ertyandproperty.InEastNewJersey,"land-rioters,"knownalsoasthe "Jerseymen,"challengedthepowerofthelargeproprietorswhohad benefittedfromthecontradictoryseventeenth-centurygrantsissuedby theStuartregime.TheJerseymenassembledalarge,well-armed,orga- nizedmovementwhoseactivitiesincludedaseriousattempttoestablisha "counter-government."Whenchargedbytheiradversarieswith"libel," "sedition,"and"inbredmalicetoauthority,"theJerseymen(whowere hardlyanarchists)soughttheoreticallegitimacyin"LockeonGovern- ment."Inalengthywrittenjustificationfortheiractions,theyexplicitly invokedtheauthorityofLockeontherelationshipbetweenpropertyand government;todrivethepointhome,theytranscribedverbatimtwenty- fivelinesfromsections138and139ofChapterEleven("OftheExtentof theLegislativePower")oftheSecondTreatise.Â™ AppealstoLockearefundamentalnotonlyinparticularcases,butin theentirecaseagainsttheBritishParliament'staxinitiatives.Theoffen- sive"innovations"(asJohnDickinsoncalledthem)inEngland'scolonial policybeganin1763,takingtheinitialformofParliamentarymeasures "forthepurposeofraisingarevenue"inthecolonies.20Thesemeasures amountedtoanassaultonlibertyandpropertybecausetheydisrupteda specialrelationshipbetweentaxationandconsent,arelationshipthatfor acenturyhadbeeninstitutionalizedincolonialpoliticsthroughthe mechanismofrepresentation.Basically,thepoliticalequationlooked likethis:Libertyandpropertyareinseparable;onecannotbesustained withouttheother.Consent,moreover,isthesinequanonofproperty;if youdonotcontrolthedisposalofanobjectbygrantingorwithholding consent,itisnotyourpropertyinthefirstplace.Inalargepolitical community,however,wherethepopulationisdispersedoverextensive territory,representationbecomesthenecessaryinstitutionalmechanism forregisteringconsent.Withoutrepresentation,then,thereisnoconsent and,therefore,nolibertyandnoproperty. By1764,"notaxationwithoutrepresentation"hadbeenafactof politicallifeinthecoloniesfornearlyonehundredyears.21Thesover- LockeonGovernment / 107 eigntyofthecoloniallegislaturesrestedupontheirmonopolyonthe powertotax.Butthenewrevenuepolicychangedallthat;itinvolvedthe impositionoftaxesuponthecolonistsbyadistantlegislativebodyin whichtheywerenot,andpracticallycouldnotbe,represented.This threatenedanexistingconditionofself-government,inwhichthecolo- nistsactuallyenjoyedthe"essentialBritishrightthatnopersonshallbe subjecttoanytaxbutwhatinpersonorbyhisrepresentativehehatha voiceinlaying."22Italsodirectlychallengedtheauthorityofthecolonial politicalestablishments.Therevenuemeasures(particularlytheStamp Act,whichaffectedthepress)thusrousedtheBritishcoloniesinNorth Americafromthelongslumberof"salutaryneglect"andoccasionedthe firstconcertedpoliticalchallengetotheauthorityofParliament. InRevolutionarypoliticalthought,theterm"property"denoteda relationshipbetweenanindividualandsomeobject,nottheobjectitself. Thatis,XbecomesmypropertyÂ—or...