For as pragmatic a bunch of Englishmen as the colonists were, the supreme irony is that real revolution was made because of a debate on theory.
As a consequence, the major constitutional issue in debate shifted permanently...from the specific questions of taxes and the administration of government to the correct definition of a concept of political science.1
Lol.
It was a debate that both the colonists and the English crown concluded had resulted in checkmate of the colonists. It was in reality, but it need not have been. The colonists had an obvious theoretical counter which, if effectively pressed, would have reversed the positions on the board. Or if they had ignored theory altogether and insisted on debating only "the specific" actions of the crown which had offended them, the crisis, for the time being at least, would have been averted. The colonists tried!
The denouement came on January 6, 1773. Crown governor Thomas Hutchinson engaged in formal debate in the Massachusetts General Assembly. The issue as he chose to frame it was sovereignty and the options he chose to present the colonists were binary. Either Parliament was supreme equally over all corners of the British empire or it was not and if it was not then it was not an empire. Different strokes for different folks was "impossible." Logically, supreme power was indivisible and if power was divisible then it was not supreme.
"from the nature of government there must be one supreme authority...no line...can be drawn between the supreme authority of Parliament and the total independence of the colonies..." 2
Up to you guys.
But why this choice? What if, as Hutchinson said, two independent legislatures did make two separate governments?
So what?
If they were "united in one head and common sovereign" and did not interfere with each other, could they not "live happily in that connection and mutually support and protect each other?3
Why not! Forget logic, if it worked in reality who cares if it was logical?
The two Houses lost no time in replying...The councilors denied that the choice was properly so narrow.
Good!
There is no such thing, they wrote, as total, absolute authority: "supreme or unlimited authority can with fitness belong only to the sovereign of the universe."4
Exactly! God! Well, Tom, if you're going to get all broke out with theory on us hows about we go from the theoretical to the theological? Is not our common Christian God, the "sovereign of the universe," a three-in-one supreme being: the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost? Is King George not divisible where the king of the universe is?
Come to find out not only was supreme power in the New Republic felicitously to be divided three-in-one among co-equal branches of government but the colonists' "definition of a concept of political science" would become accepted as the basis for British Commonwealth relations!5
How did the colonists not win on this theoretical point? lol
Hutchinson retorted sharply...Logically, what they were saying was that two supreme authorities could act simultaneously over the same people; but this, he insisted, was simply impossible.6
Hutchinson was just repeating himself now: it was "impossible," end of story, and the reason Hutchinson took to repeating himself was on accounta Hutchinson knew that it was he who would be in checkmate if the colonists' theoretical point had been pressed.
The claims of the House he could not so easily dismiss, for he understood the importance of the legal arguments that could be mobilized to defend the idea that two absolute legislatures might coexist within an empire if they came into contact only in the person of the King. It took this accomplished lawyer, scholar, and politician twenty-two pages of closely wrought and learned prose to state his reasons...that...the Massachusetts government...was..."subject to the supreme authority of England," that is, to Parliament.7
Hutchinson had convinced the colonists that he had won on the theoretical plane when he had not convinced himself! Seeing Hutchinson's victory,
Spokesmen for England repeated, with what appears to have been an almost obsessive and ritualistic regularity, that..."two sovereign authorities in the same state...is a contradiction.8
Knowing (or thinking they knew) that they had lost on the theoretical ground the colonists simultaneously tried to elevate the guns lower, to the practical facts on the ground.
they proceeded to review the essential parts of the constitution that demonstrated the illegality of Parliament's taxing the people of Massachusetts.9
No, no! None of that! You can't argue "specific questions of taxes" when you have lost (and you know you have lost) on the theoretical question of Parliament's supreme, unchallengeable right to tax in general. So...Since Parliament has the right to tax nobody can complain about taxes? Lolol and wtf .
It was on that basis that the Revolutionary War was fought omg. Thomas Hutchinson had convinced the colonists that the "disagreement" over "the correct definition of a concept of political science" determined continued unity with Great Britain or independence.
And so it did.10
1 Ideological Origins, (219)
2. Hutchinson quoted ibid (220)
3 Ibid (221)
4 Ibid (220-1)
5 Ibid (224)
6 Ibid (221)
7 Ibid (221-2)
8 Ibid (223)
9 Ibid (221)
10 Ibid (222)
As a consequence, the major constitutional issue in debate shifted permanently...from the specific questions of taxes and the administration of government to the correct definition of a concept of political science.1
Lol.
It was a debate that both the colonists and the English crown concluded had resulted in checkmate of the colonists. It was in reality, but it need not have been. The colonists had an obvious theoretical counter which, if effectively pressed, would have reversed the positions on the board. Or if they had ignored theory altogether and insisted on debating only "the specific" actions of the crown which had offended them, the crisis, for the time being at least, would have been averted. The colonists tried!
The denouement came on January 6, 1773. Crown governor Thomas Hutchinson engaged in formal debate in the Massachusetts General Assembly. The issue as he chose to frame it was sovereignty and the options he chose to present the colonists were binary. Either Parliament was supreme equally over all corners of the British empire or it was not and if it was not then it was not an empire. Different strokes for different folks was "impossible." Logically, supreme power was indivisible and if power was divisible then it was not supreme.
"from the nature of government there must be one supreme authority...no line...can be drawn between the supreme authority of Parliament and the total independence of the colonies..." 2
Up to you guys.
But why this choice? What if, as Hutchinson said, two independent legislatures did make two separate governments?
So what?
If they were "united in one head and common sovereign" and did not interfere with each other, could they not "live happily in that connection and mutually support and protect each other?3
Why not! Forget logic, if it worked in reality who cares if it was logical?
Good!
There is no such thing, they wrote, as total, absolute authority: "supreme or unlimited authority can with fitness belong only to the sovereign of the universe."4
Exactly! God! Well, Tom, if you're going to get all broke out with theory on us hows about we go from the theoretical to the theological? Is not our common Christian God, the "sovereign of the universe," a three-in-one supreme being: the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost? Is King George not divisible where the king of the universe is?
Come to find out not only was supreme power in the New Republic felicitously to be divided three-in-one among co-equal branches of government but the colonists' "definition of a concept of political science" would become accepted as the basis for British Commonwealth relations!5
How did the colonists not win on this theoretical point? lol
Hutchinson retorted sharply...Logically, what they were saying was that two supreme authorities could act simultaneously over the same people; but this, he insisted, was simply impossible.6
Hutchinson was just repeating himself now: it was "impossible," end of story, and the reason Hutchinson took to repeating himself was on accounta Hutchinson knew that it was he who would be in checkmate if the colonists' theoretical point had been pressed.
The claims of the House he could not so easily dismiss, for he understood the importance of the legal arguments that could be mobilized to defend the idea that two absolute legislatures might coexist within an empire if they came into contact only in the person of the King. It took this accomplished lawyer, scholar, and politician twenty-two pages of closely wrought and learned prose to state his reasons...that...the Massachusetts government...was..."subject to the supreme authority of England," that is, to Parliament.7
Hutchinson had convinced the colonists that he had won on the theoretical plane when he had not convinced himself! Seeing Hutchinson's victory,
Spokesmen for England repeated, with what appears to have been an almost obsessive and ritualistic regularity, that..."two sovereign authorities in the same state...is a contradiction.8
Knowing (or thinking they knew) that they had lost on the theoretical ground the colonists simultaneously tried to elevate the guns lower, to the practical facts on the ground.
they proceeded to review the essential parts of the constitution that demonstrated the illegality of Parliament's taxing the people of Massachusetts.9
No, no! None of that! You can't argue "specific questions of taxes" when you have lost (and you know you have lost) on the theoretical question of Parliament's supreme, unchallengeable right to tax in general. So...Since Parliament has the right to tax nobody can complain about taxes? Lolol and wtf .
It was on that basis that the Revolutionary War was fought omg. Thomas Hutchinson had convinced the colonists that the "disagreement" over "the correct definition of a concept of political science" determined continued unity with Great Britain or independence.
And so it did.10
1 Ideological Origins, (219)
2. Hutchinson quoted ibid (220)
3 Ibid (221)
4 Ibid (220-1)
5 Ibid (224)
6 Ibid (221)
7 Ibid (221-2)
8 Ibid (223)
9 Ibid (221)
10 Ibid (222)
