Well hey there and welcome back to Heimler’s History. If you’re just joining us, we’ve been going through Unit 3 of the AP U.S. History curriculum, and in this video we’re going to deal with the philosophical foundations of the American Revolution. So crack them brain folds open because we bout to get philosophical. Let’s get to it. Now the main question we’re trying to answer in this video is basically this: how and why did colonial attitudes about government change in the years right before the American Revolution? Now recall that in the last video I mentioned that when colonial delegates met for the Stamp Act Congress in 1765, they did so to petition the British Parliament to repeal the Stamp Act. And we’re used to thinking about the Stamp Act and all the other various and sundry taxation laws as the tinder for the flame that would erupt into the American Revolution. And that’s very true. But I have to reemphasize what I mentioned in that last video. Revolution was not a foregone conclusion to most colonists at this point. The delegates in the Stamp Act Congress petitioned Parliament as loyal subjects to country and crown. They just wanted what was due to them as British citizens. And that was still true after all those tax laws were passed and delegates met for another convention called the Continental Congress in 1774. Here delegates from every colony but Georgia—where you at, Georgia?—deliberated about what the colonists ought to do regarding Britain’s increasing legislative tyranny. And despite their differing regional views, they all agreed that the colonies needed to resist further violations of their liberty at the hands of Parliament. But revolution wasn’t their answer. They held out hope that some kind of reconciliation could be negotiated. They hoped that there was some agreement they could come to that would both protect their liberty without disrupting their society and economy. Now, the king and Parliament went ahead and dropped a massive steamer on those hopes by refusing to negotiate with colonies whom they argued were rebelling against their rightful authority. On which, more later. But for now, my question is, where did the colonists learn to think in such ways? Why did they long for liberty in ways that their British parentage clearly did not endorse? Well, if you watched the last video, you know the answer: they learned it from the Enlightenment. And in this video we’re going to go much more in depth to explore the ideas that inspired the colonists to yearn for liberty and resist any encroachment upon it. So let’s start with my boy John Locke. His work Two Treatises on Government deeply influenced the leaders of the colonial delegations in the following ways. Locke argued that a legitimate government can only exist by the consent of the governed, which is just a fancy, thinky-thinky way of saying that the power to govern is in the hands of the people, not the hands of a monarch. If a government exists, it’s because the people will it and allow it to exist. Another potent idea from Locke was the notion that human beings, just by virtue of existing, are endowed with natural rights. These rights are not granted to the people by the government or a king, but rather by the Creator, and thus, since those rights were not granted by the government, the government could not take them away. And for Locke, those rights were life, liberty, and property. Additionally, Locke argued that the path to liberty for a people is self-rule through elected representatives, so this really put the kibosh on the idea of hereditary privilege or inherited offices like you saw in Britain. And you can see how a group of people who had really worked these ideas deep into their minds, AND who also had no representation in Parliament, AND were being crushed under laws that limited their liberty, might cry foul. Then there was Jean-Jaques Rousseau whose work on the social contract likewise inspired the colonial leadership. Rousseau argued that given the power to govern is in the hands of the people, then that means they are in a social contract with their government. The people agree to willingly give up some of their power to a government as long as that government agrees to protect the people’s natural rights. If laws are passed, for example, that the people do not consent to, then those laws may be considered null and void. So again, back to taxation without representation, you can see how an idea like this would agitate the colonists for rebellion. And the last Enlightenment thinker I’ll mention is the Baron de Montequieu whose writings inspired colonial leaders to believe that a republican form of government was the best kind of government to preserve a people’s liberty. He argued that a government ought to be split into three branches: the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. And each of these branches should be able to check and balance the power of the others. Now, with all these ideas swirling around in their heads, and with the spiritual enthusiasm engendered by the Great Awakening, Americans during this time began to see themselves as a people blessed with liberty, and any threat to that liberty was a threat to their very life. And yet, as late as 1774, the delegates at the Continental Congress opened their session by raising their glasses to toast King George. They still wanted to be British citizens. Revolution was not on the table. And this was true not only for the members of the Congress but also for most of the colonial population. So how did things change? Well, it’s more complicated than what I’m about to tell you, but one of the most significant factors was the publication of a little pamphlet in 1776 called Common Sense by Thomas Paine. In this little book, Paine used everyday language to argue powerfully for independence from Britain. He used biblical examples to show the folly of monarchy, going so far as to call it “the most bare-faced falsity ever imposed on mankind.” Which is why I strive to be the most hairy-faced truthity ever imposed on mankind. YOu know, you gotta have goals. Common Sense was also shot through with Enlightenment thought, and this was a big deal because while the elite folks in the COntinental Congress were reading Locke and Rousseau and Montesquieu, those writers’ works didn’t filter down into the main population. But Thomas Paine was able to adorn these ideas with fire that caught up the minds of the colonists into the blaze that had thus far only taken hold in the minds of the elite. And some of these elite folks, like John Adams, who was deeply invested in Enlightenment thinking thought Paine’s work too pedestrian, too simplistic to communicate the gravity of these weighty ideas. In fact, Adams’s assessment of Common Sense was the following, and I quote: “What a poor, ignorant, malicious, crapulous mass.” I don’t even know what a crapulous mass is, but I love it. But Adams’s assessment didn’t matter. Thomas Paine put language to things the colonists had felt, but were not yet able to articulate. And this pamphlet sold like crazy. Soon everyone seemed to be reading this powerful argument that the only way forward was not as British citizens, but as independent Americans. And so with this new turn in colonial sentiment, the Second Continental Congress was in session in 1776 when a formal resolution for independence was put on the floor. Thomas Jefferson was tasked with composing the Declaration of Independence, which was similarly shot through with Enlightenment ideas like natural rights and the social contract. Delegates moved to accept the Declaration on July 2, 1776, and two days later on the fourth, it was made public. And that’s going to get us into a revolutionary war with Britain, but that’s going to have to wait for the next video. Okay, that’s what you need to know about Unit 3 topic 4 of the AP U.S. History curriculum. If you’d like to be even more Enlightened about these things, then it would be common sense for you to and a five on your exam in May. And if, by chance, you didn’t think this video was a poor, ignorant, crapulous mass, then go ahead and subscribe and I’ll keep making them for you. Heimler out.