How Revolutionary was the American Revolution at the State and Local Level?

Webster’s Dictionary defines a revolution as: “a sudden, radical, or complete change; a fundamental change in political organization; the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed; activity or movement designed to effect fundamental changes in the socioeconomic situation…”[1] The question is: would the events that occurred at a local/state level qualify to fit this description of a revolution? Were the political developments revolutionary at the local level? The answer is most definitely yes. Professor John K. Alexander has posed a statement to his class this quarter, that the American Revolution was a duel revolution. One revolution fought for the right to keep foreign rule out, and one revolution fought to see who would rule at home. It was this fight for the home front that kept the revolution revolutionary at the local/state level. There were internal conflicts at the local/state level, and these could be seen as class conflict, sectional division, and even religious divisions, which fully articulate and qualify for the said definition above. The best way to see if the events were revolutionary at the local level is to define these conflicts that were set up beforehand and how they resolved. The real question will be is if any change had taken place. There are examples of this change seen in most (if not all) of the thirteen colonies, but I will primarily involve myself with the examples from one, as this is not a doctoral thesis. But I am confident that the colony/state of Pennsylvania will fulfill the necessary requirements stated above.

Pennsylvania has been defined as the most radical of the colonies, both by Professor John K. Alexander in class and Merrill Jensen, who had this to say in his book The Articles of the Confederation, “In no other colony were the radical-political-economic lines so sharply drawn, nowhere was the ruling class so opposed to change or to complete concession, and nowhere was the political revolution so complete in 1776.”[2] This, of course, was the year where Pennsylvania was trying to compose a new state constitution, a radical piece of legislation that eventually came into existence, after much obstreperous debate by the rebellious “Associaters.” But what had changed? We need to first look at how Pennsylvania was politically aligned beforehand to cause all the political strife that needed to be amended.

In colonial Pennsylvania, leading up to the revolution, the control of the legislation, called the “Assembly,” was mostly represented by the rich old money aristocrats from the eastern old settlement part of the state. The Western and often poorer areas of the state were grossly misrepresented in this government. The west had three representatives for every eight by the east in the Assembly.[3] The western part of the state felt completely ostracized by the east, and had claims that they were unjustly represented for the amount of taxation involved. This was of course one of the major battle cries and justifications for the American Revolution. Like the colonial representatives complained to British Parliament, the western people of Pennsylvania thought they too were suffering “taxation without representation” by the eastern portion of the state. Though there were plenty of poorer people out west, this state division was not solely a class issue. Many merchants and wealthy individuals from the western portions of Pennsylvania were at odds with the aristocratic oligarchy in the east. “The western farmer could meet the eastern merchant on terms of appropriate equality only if he could secure adequate representation in the Assembly.”[4]

There was also religious conflict between the east and west. This was largely due to the passive Quakers who held power in the east versus the western landowners, who themselves were in conflict much of the time with the Native Americans. There were many raids and skirmishes on the frontier, and when the Quaker representatives did nothing to protect their fellow statesmen, the westerners again grew wary of being underrepresented.[5] This religious conflict has less to do with being a revolutionary factor on its own than it does with being part of an instigator in the sectional conflict.

The eastern part of the state also had control of the masses within their districts. This was due to the strict suffrage laws in place. Only white, free, adult males, with at least fifty pounds worth of taxable land were able to vote. This kept the majority of people from being able to do anything about their current political situation. According to Jensen, in 1775 Philadelphia, only 335 out of 3,452 eligible males were able to vote.[6]

The only men fighting the war against the British happened to be the poor. It was a poor person’s battle. Only men who could afford to pay the fines did not participate in the militia (aka: the elite wealthy). The poorer and middling classes wanted the legislation to either drop the fines or enact a new fine that was proportionate to the income of the individual.[7] This severely made the poor people angry, and clearly this shows that there was an internal class conflict as well as sectional ones in the state of Pennsylvania.

Now that the conflict has been readily established (by better historians than I), the more important part of the question of how revolutionary was the local/state level needs to be addressed. This can be done by showing at what was accomplished to promote radical change within society, this society of course being Pennsylvania. In 1776, the most radical supporters for a new constitution came together at the state constitutional convention. They turned out new constitution that became the most radical of the thirteen states.

These delegates of the Constitutional Convention were extremely distrustful of a powerful state government, a government which the few could manipulate and wield for their own uses against the wishes of the many. Thus, the representatives tried to develop a government that could be totally checked by the people, if they so desired. This can be seen in the Bill of Rights (which amazingly enough, resembled the Virginia Declaration of Rights). The delegates wrote this in their Bill of Rights, “That all Men are born equally free and Independent, and have Certain Natural inherent and inalienable rights, among which are the enjoying and defending Life and Liberty, Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting Property and pursuing and obtaining happiness and Safety.”[8] The new constitution gave the right to vote to any white, free, male, over the age of 21, the only limitation that they had to pay a tax. But this time, they could pay any kind of tax, even a small one like a dog license tax. This roughly meant that everyone who was white (sorry ladies, and men of other races, not quite yet) could vote. This was an extremely radical notion, which made a lot of the elitist, who had a distinct distrust for the masses, very upset.

This constitutional convention also made other equally radical changes. They chose to have no Governor, due to the slight mistrust of executive power. Instead they had a Supreme Council which became that branch, and this council had no veto power. Also, following the distrust of the executive branch, the convention decided to have only one legislative assembly (instead of using the bi-cameral mold of old), which would be checked by the people through annual elections. The Judicial branch of the government was then selected by this assembly for seven year terms, but they faired no better. Any judge could be thrown out of office for “misbehavior.” This of course could be defined by just about anything.[9]

This is only in regards to the first Pennsylvanian Constitution of 1776. Later, due to political strife between the “Republicans” and “Constitutionalist,” was the Constitution again amended in 1790. The “Republicans” were a political faction that were made up of the elitist, old money, and claimed to support loyalty to the people. They wanted to amend the Constitution of 1776 to be more like the novel United States Constitution. In opposition, were the Constitutionalists who wanted to keep the state government the way it was. The Republicans used a political ploy to represent the Constitutionalist as strangers and meddlers to the needs of Pennsylvania.[10] And in 1790 they got a political majority in the Assembly and called for a new convention. Here they changed the Constitution around to closely resemble the new United States one. They changed many things, but one thing they could not do was take away the right to vote, once it had been given. Though they slightly amended the right, now the people had to pay at least a state tax to be eligible to vote. This was not a very big difference, and it could be easily afforded by the masses.

When this constitution was finished being drafted, they did not send it back to the people out of fear that it would be rejected (the 1776 one did not go back to the people, but it had not been set as precedent by Mass. as of yet). This maneuver of changing the Constitution by the Republicans was simply a way the elite tried to take back control of the government, which previously had been taken away from them in 1776 by the masses. This was the end result of an internal class struggle for power over almost two decades.

Again, this has only been an example of one colony out of thirteen that took place during the revolution. Massachusetts and North Carolina, as well as others, have equally interesting individual stories and cases that point to internal struggles at the local level, which made the Revolution revolutionary. They all seemed to follow the same pattern of corrupt/incompetent representation of the legislature, sectional divisions, class confliction, and religious turmoil. Some colonies did seem so more than others. And all had unique legislation passed spurred on by these internal conflictions. But it was Pennsylvania which seemed to have it all. It had all the best examples to show the revolution taking place at the micro-historical level.

The question again needs to be addressed, was the Revolution revolutionary at the local level of political development? In the great scheme of things, all the colonies had their equal share in the Revolution against the rule by the British, and the Revolution from those that ruled at home, even if it was only for a brief period in time. The changes from the old British system and the elite regime, even if it was changed for a brief amount of time, were toward a more democratic representative state by the people, for the people, it was very radical change indeed.

[1] Webster’s New World Dictionary, “revolution” 4-5, 1218.
[2] Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation: An interpretation of the social-constitutional history of the American Revolution 1774-1781, The University of Wisconsin Press 1940, 16-17.
[3] History 503 lecture, 4/22/05.
[4] Merrill Jensen, The Articles of Confederation: An interpretation of the social-constitutional history of the American Revolution 1774-1781, The University of Wisconsin Press 1940, 18.
[5] Ibid, 17-18.
[6] Ibid, 17.
[7] J.K. Alexander, “The Fort Wilson Incident of 1779: A Case Study of the Revolutionary Crowd,” William and Mary Quarterly, Vol XXXI, No. 4, Oct 1974, 594.
[8] J.K. Alexander, History 503: “Notes on Mass., PA., and NC. Colony/State Politics,” 2.
[9] Ibid
[10] History 503 Lecture, 4/22/05.