Whately, Thomas. The Regulations Lately Made (1765), in CAPCT, Vol. 1, pp. 166-170
Thomas Whately was an English politician as well as renowned writer, and is remembered for publishing a letter on the reasonable nature of the Stamp Act, which had been imposed by the British government on its colonies, of which America was one at the time. The Stamp Act required that printed materials in all of its colonies had to be produced on stamped paper that was made in London and had the valid embossed revenue stamp (Greene, 12). It was essentially a direct tax imposed upon the American people, and had to be paid in British currency and not the American paper money that was in use at the time.
Whately was the one who drafted the Stamp Act, and as such his name made his way into the history of the American Revolution since it was one of the issues that led to the colony’s rebellion against the British government. He was in full support of the act, and in his opinion it was not a burdensome tax that would not bring any problems from the colonies (Whately, 167). He also felt that the colonies, since they were under the jurisdiction of the British government, were entitled to pay taxes to this government, and that parliament had every right to impose the tax on American citizens.
Whately believed that the citizens of the colonies, even if they did not vote or have any say in the parliamentary proceedings, were still represented in the same parliament and thus had to follow its directives. He claimed that the colonial citizens were “virtually represented” in parliament. This means that even if they did not have any direct representation in parliament, the members of the parliament still had their best interests at heart, just like they did for the British citizens who also did not vote (Whately, 170). Thus the notion of not voting was of no consequence to Whately in the implementation of the Stamp Act.
Adams, Samuel. “Circular Letter” in CAPCT, Vol. I, pp. 197-199.
Samuel Adams is one of the founding fathers of the United States of America. In a circular letter intended for the Massachusetts House of Representatives, he outlines his arguments against the Townshend Acts. The Townshend Acts were other taxes that had been imposed upon the American people by the British government as a way of generating revenue from the colonies after the successful repeal of the Stamp Act (Alexander, 57). In this letter, Adams states that the British parliament does not have the right to institute such a tax because the colony of Massachusetts had no representation within parliament. As such, parliament itself had not authority to impose this tax, and enforcing it was a violation of the laws of the British Empire itself as well as the natural laws of the colonists. This made the Townshend Acts essentially illegal.
Adams was also of the opinion that the parliament in London was too far away to effectively administrate the colonies effectively. As such, he made it clear that he was not agitating for the colony to get representation in parliament because the vast distances between the two geographical locations would make that arrangement impractical. In his opinion, the arrangement where the colonies only paid taxes to the provincial bodies in which they were represented was the best way forward (Adams, 198).
Works Cited
Adams, Samuel. “Circular Letter” in CAPCT, Vol. I, pp. 197-199.
Alexander, John K. Samuel Adams: the life of an American revolutionary. Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
Greene, Jack P. The constitutional origins of the American Revolution. Cambridge University Press, 2011.
Whately, Thomas. The Regulations Lately Made (1765), in CAPCT, Vol. 1, pp. 166-170
Hamilton and Wilson
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John. To the People of the State of New York. The Federalist Papers, No. 7, in CAPCT, vol 1, pp. 456 – 458
In this article, Alexander Hamilton and his fellow authors, James Madison and John Jay, put forward arguments in favour of the proposed federal constitution, urging the people of New York to ratify it. Hamilton’s main fear is that if the proposed constitution is not accepted and the federal government ratified, then the United States of America will not be able to defend itself against domestic threats that may arise in the form of rogue states which may opt to do whatever they want against. The national government would have no constitutional way of asserting its authority over these rogue states, and as such the possibility would be high that the union itself would break off (Hamilton, Madison, and Jay, 456).
Hamilton, Madison and Jay state that the ideas contained in the Articles of Confederacy have fundamental problems. The first is the insistence for states to retain their laws as opposed to following the laws set up by a national government. This, in their opinion, would create a situation where there are laws in existence that go against the interests of other states and this would very easily lead to strife between member states. They also criticise the principle which allows state contributions to the common treasury to be regulated through the use of quotas. Such a move would lead to an insufficient common treasury which would not be effective in holding and governing the member states together. It would also be an unfair method of regulation given that the resources available to each state were extremely diverse. It would also bring problems on how the common wealth of the nation would be shared among all the member states given that their contributions would very likely be unequal (Waxman, 87).
Wilson, James. Speech on Ratification (1787), in CAPCT, Vol. 1, pp. 521-522.
In his speech or ratification, James Wilson engages in a discussion on the necessity of having a Bill of Rights within the constitution to ensure that the rights of American citizens are not trampled upon by the government. He considers the rights that every American citizen has as not being present just because the law enshrines them but that they exist as natural rights that are applicable to every human being alive. His opinion is that the new Constitution should not create new rights as such but secure and enhance those that already exist within nature (Wilson, 522). It is not necessary to create a Bill of Rights that outlines these natural rights, as that would not really be the source of the rights themselves considering that they exist from nature itself.
Wilson also qualifies his arguments against the Bill of Rights by citing some of the works of Blackstone. In this line of thinking, Wilson outlines how the law prevents a citizen from bringing harm upon his fellow citizens, and by doing so manages to increase the civil liberty of mankind. Wilson asks of this observation, is it natural liberty for mankind to want to do mischief upon his fellow men (Wilson, DiIulio, and Meenekshi 48)? This simple question also came into play as a form of opposition against the formation of the Bill of Rights. If it is, indeed, the nature of mankind to want to do mischief to other people, it is possible to view the Bill of Rights as going against the natural rights that nature has bestowed on mankind, hence form a good against argument against this part of the constitution (Wilson, 522).
Works Cited
Hamilton, Alexander, Madison, James, and Jay, John. To the People of the State of New York. The Federalist Papers, No. 7, in CAPCT, vol 1, pp. 456 – 458
Wilson, James. Speech on Ratification (1787), in CAPCT, Vol. 1, pp. 521-522.
Waxman, Laura Hamilton. What are the Articles of Confederation? And Other Questions about the Birth of the United States. Lerner Publications, 2012.
Wilson, James Q., John J. DiIulio Jr, and Meenekshi Bose. American Government: Institutions & Policies. Cengage Learning, 2011.
Wise and Randolph
John Wise, “A Vindication of the New England Churches” (1717), in CAPCT, Vol. 1, pp. 80-84 John Wise was a clergyman as well as a political leader in Massachusetts, and is greatly remembered for his activism against the taxation activities of the British Empire on its American colonial citizens. He held the belief that God created man and gave to every human being freedom to do what they want, and as such any ideology that restricted this God-given freedom was wrong and evil. In his opinion, the aristocratic system from Britain as well as the monarchy itself was wrong because it did not follow the tenets of Christ as concerns government (Valeri, 550).
Wise believed in the existence of a natural state, which was the natural way in which God created the world and did not enforce any types of restrictions against him. Man however, voluntarily left this natural state due to his need for uniting together into a covenant. As such, he created governing states such as democracies, aristocracies and monarchies (Wise, 80). In the natural state, it is the covenant between man and God that prevents people from doing bad things, while in manmade states laws exists to prevent this. He also believes in the idea that all men are equal. This equality encompasses all aspects of life, and no man should be seen as being greater than other men.
Wise’s natural state is very different from a civil state in that in the natural state all men are regarded as equal, and the only covenants in existence are between the individual and God. In a civil state, however, there are laws that limit the freedoms of individuals as well as individuals who are appointed to oversee the creation and regulation of these laws, thus setting them apart from other common men. The best kind of government is a democratic government that is created with the base of Christianity and God in mind (Wise, 80).
Randolph, John, Sir. “Re-election Speech” (1736), in CAPCT, Vol.1, pp. 96-97
According to Sir Randolph, the legislature possesses quite a number of privileges that the common citizen does not, such as the ability to own land which could be leased out to other normal citizens as well as not having to pay taxes. These were extensive privileges that the normal citizen could not get access to. He advocated for a system of government where the people would be considered equal regardless of their position within society or the level of their riches (Barton, 12). The type of government that Randolph proposes is not exactly the same as the one that Wise had in mind as the perfect government due to the degree to which the individuals felt the system to should be based around God and Christian values. Randolph’s idea was not as ingrained in religious beliefs as Wise’s idea was.
Works Cited
Barton, R. T. "Virginia Colonial Decisions: The Reports by Sir John Randolph and by Edward Barradall of Decisions of the General Court of Virginia, 1728-1741, 2 vols." (1909): 1-22.
Randolph, John, Sir. “Re-election Speech” (1736), in CAPCT, Vol.1, pp. 96-97
Valeri, Mark. "William Petty in Boston: Political Economy, Religion, and Money in Provincial New England." Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 8.3 (2010): 549-580.
Wise, John. “A Vindication of the New England Churches” (1717), in CAPCT, Vol. 1, pp. 80-84
