Samuel Adams and the Founding Brothers: Early American Politics

Introduction: The Contradiction in American National Identity

This essay examines the political themes of early American politics, the major players, and the issues that arose in the political arena of the time, with specific reference to Samuel Adams: Radical Puritan by William Fowler and Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph Ellis.

Samuel Adams: Puritan Roots and Revolutionary Thought

The first part of the essay analyzes the ideological, historical, personal, and administrative features of the first American government, and uses these to explain the "contradiction" that has existed in American national identity ever since. The chief contributors to this contradiction were the ideas about government and public life that Samuel Adams gained from his Puritan heritage and his experiences during the revolutionary period; the major causes of the American Revolution; the "Spirit of '76," or Whig principles; the republican ideology stated in the Declaration of Independence; the changes in the organization of government from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution; and the politics of the 1790s (Garraty and Barnes, 2000).

Samuel Adams's ideas on politics stemmed largely from his Puritan background and his experiences during the Revolutionary period. His ideas were considered by many to contain a greater rigidity and austerity than those of his contemporaries. Religion was the prime base from which he formulated his ideology and executed his actions. Adams held that the money paid in taxes could be better utilized for a state church: "Episcopate in America...the revenue raised in America, for ought we can tell, may be constitutionally applied towards the support of prelacy..." (Boston Gazette, April 4, 1768). He supported the idea of investigative journalism to inform the people of attempts to limit their rights and freedom, and to inspire genuine indignation toward the forces behind those attempts.

Through his efforts to raise awareness of the causes of the Revolution, Adams also identified which acts could be detrimental to its progress. Puritan ideology drew a direct correlation between the religious concept of covenant and political economics. Adams examined the promise of the early settlers to the King, arguing that they had "promised the King to enlarge his Dominion, on their own Charge, provided that they & their Posterity might enjoy such and such Privileges," and that the taxation of the colonists therefore constituted a breach of contract that warranted the revolutionary countermeasures that ensued. Adams's emphasis on this covenant-based ideology was not entirely new; he built upon the Puritan belief that kings establish a contract with their subjects much as God established a contract with man. He further stressed that a government founded on religious principles could be criticized for veering away from those principles, but not with the intent of toppling it and replacing it with newer ones (Fowler, 1997; Ellis, 2000).

His experience as a revolutionary also helped shape his political thinking and his approach to the struggle for independence. The idea of a conservative revolution suggested that action should be taken primarily to restore previously contracted rights, maintain social stability, and lay the groundwork for a sounder future political system. By this method, Adams believed that a great deal of bloodshed and chaos could be avoided, and that society would be afforded a better chance for social improvement — given that a contract-based society encouraged individual change, which in turn led to social change, since society tends to reflect the strengths and weaknesses of its members (Fowler, 1997).

Whig Principles, Republican Ideology, and the Articles of Confederation

Samuel Adams's ideas were also influenced by the Whig principles of the day, as well as by republican ideology and the changes in the organization of government from the Articles of Confederation to the U.S. Constitution. The contradiction in the national fabric, as asserted by Ellis, can be directly linked to these factors as well. The colonists' reaction to imperial pressure incited in them the desire to study the nature of power and the implications of individual rights. The loyalists based their ideology on order rather than liberty, drawing mainly from historical precedent. Their revolutionary opponents, on the other hand, combined constitutional, traditional, and historical arguments with assertions of natural law and natural rights.

The revolutionary mindset reflected a resurrection of early Whig ideas drawn from Locke and others. These older stances resonated powerfully in the 1760s and 1770s, when the monarch sustained laws made by a Parliament over which the Americans had no control, thereby creating the contradiction in the national fabric that appears to have persisted ever since (Fowler, 1997; Ellis, 2000).

Ellis and the Founding Brothers: Leaders Who Made American History

Ellis, in his book Founding Brothers, asserts that the circle of revolutionists were the actual leaders who truly made American history. Ellis has thoroughly researched the backgrounds of these leaders in such depth that he is justified in asserting this opinion. What is perhaps even more convincing is the fact that Ellis explored several different aspects of the characters of these revolutionary leaders — the men who made up "the greatest generation of political talent in American history" (Ellis, 2000).

Ellis effectively establishes his arguments in support of his ideas on the creation of the nation and the contributions these leaders made to the formulation of American ideology and the Constitution. He first outlines the new nation's sentiments and its need for leadership that appreciated the value of freedom while remaining acutely aware of the lack of an established political system that young America faced. He then establishes the framework for the issues the Founding Brothers confronted: slavery, civil rights, federal financial problems, and the question of authority. Ellis combines the roles of the founding brothers in the chapters "The Dinner," "The Duel," and "The Silence" to demonstrate that the precarious position of the nation could only be preserved by this remarkable circle of individuals. Finally, Ellis attributes particular importance to the personalized nature of the relationships among the founders, relationships that spawned the revolutionary ideas needed to support and build the American nation (Ellis, 2000).

Ellis emphasizes the lack of checks and balances in young America's political structure and how this deteriorated public trust. Policies pertaining to law, the constitution, and governmental institutions were still being developed. The founding brothers' contribution stems from the fact that they understood these needs and, through their social, political, and economic perspectives, offered different visions and values rooted in their own personalities and characters. George Washington, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and Samuel Adams all contributed decisively to the making of America — not merely because they were great thinkers, but because of their personalities and their leadership. The initiatives they took in informing the public had a catalytic effect, and it was their combined efforts that left the most lasting impact on both the public and the American political system (Ellis, 2000).

Conclusion

It can be concluded that Ellis's assertion — that the Founding Brothers were indeed a band of revolutionaries who decisively shaped the nation — is well supported. The fact that all of them proved to be great leaders in shaping infant America only reinforces his argument. Through the example of Jefferson, one can reasonably conclude that these leaders changed the structure of the American political and social system through their innovative ideas and perspectives, and that their collective legacy continues to define the national character.