A Loyal Subject of the Crown

Thomas Jefferson is attributed with saying, "A little revolution now and then is a good thing," but not all Americans of his day apparently agreed with him. In "1776: A Christian Loyalist View," James McGoldrick attacks this Jeffersonian position from the revolutionary-era Loyalist perspective, agreeing with colonial preacher, Jonathan Boucher, that the colonies' revolt against the English king was not justified. By reading the article, one can determine that his thesis centered on the historical and Scriptural arguments against the revolution. However, this thesis takes over a page to develop, giving the reader little chance to grasp his intent until well into the article. Nevertheless, the implications of this thesis are fundamental to an understanding of U.S. history because they force us to question the political philosophy of the founding fathers, the integrity of the revolutionary cause, and the very birth of the United States itself.

To support his position, McGoldrick uses both inductive and deductive methodologies for defending his position. His inductive arguments rely on his research of the historical testimony of Jonathan Boucher, which provide a contemporary Loyalist source to justify his overall argument against the American Revolution. His deductive argument extrapolates particular theological interpretations of Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-14 which he then applies to the American Revolution. He also uses quotations from the reformers, Calvin and Luther, to enhance this argument. However, his historical, theological, and philosophical methodology leads to many unintended implications that stem from his premises, many of which are not addressed in the article. If the American Revolution was not justified, then are the principles of individual rights invalid as well? McGoldrick dismisses this question as a Lockean concept, but we have no reason (within the article) as to why Locke is a bad source. Moreover, what is a Christian's responsibility toward his fellow citizens who also suffer injustices and abuses from government? If it is in a Christian's power to end an evil regime, should he not do so for the sake of millions of people that might otherwise be hurt by injustice? Therefore, although McGoldrick's thesis makes sense in a sophisticated manner with fairly well researched material, it overlooks these unanswered questions that are vital to understanding his overall position.

Specifically, however, it is important to note the strengths and weaknesses of McGoldrick's evidence. His evidence is strong, particularly regarding the story of Boucher because it provides a contemporary look at the Loyalist position. His use of Calvin and Luther is also strong, especially because it may have stronger appeal with those of a reformed theological persuasion. Thus, McGoldrick's (1977, 40) use of the evidence causes him to conclude that, "The course of revolutionary events shows that the vast majority of colonial Christians preferred the counsel of John Locke and those clergy who failed to see the anti-biblical character of resistance to a divinely ordained government."

However, his evidence also has some key weaknesses. Particularly, McGoldrick interprets Romans 13 as a commandment to citizens, regardless of the government above them. Yet, he completely overlooked an alternative interpretation of Romans 13 as a commandment for governments to wield the sword righteously and accomplish justice while also a commandment for citizens to obey such government. Mayhew (1750), whom McGoldrick quotes in his article, advocated this interpretation when he said, "Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle's reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favour of submission to such rulers as he himself describes." If this interpretation is valid, it gives much more credibility to the justification for the American Revolution, yet McGoldrick's evidence does not take time to refute this interpretation, only postulate his own. Moreover, while the testimony of Boucher may be thought provoking, it is the only major historical evidence that supports McGoldrick's position.

It is also important to consider McGoldrick's overall contribution to important literature on the topic of the American Revolution. While McGoldrick's arguments agree with the work of Tyler (1895, 26), who decried the Revolutionist literature of the era as "lyrical and satirical," it flies in the face of several pieces respected literature on the subject and philosophy of the American Revolution and its aftermath. For example, Locke (1689) makes a very rational and persuasive case for just retribution against tyrants who use force against their people when he says, "And whosoever in authority exceeds the power given him by the law, and makes use of the force he has under his command, to compass that upon the subject, which the law allows not, ceases in that to be a magistrate, and acting without authority, may be opposed, as any other man, who by force invades the right of another." Moreover, McGoldrick's research finds a hefty opponent in the research of David McCullough's (2006) rigorously researched work, 1776, which admits the human error of the revolutionary cause, but highlights the providential guidance and overall justification of the movement. Meanwhile, when De Tocqueville (1840, 118) witnessed the after effects of the American Revolution, he approvingly perceived of the American link between Christianity and political liberty when he said, "By the side of every religion is to be found a political opinion, which is connected with it by affinity."

In light of this analysis, although there is supportive literature for McGoldrick's thesis, his arguments pound at the brick wall of major authors in support of the American Revolution and its philosophy. McGoldrick's piece only clashes with the findings in their works.

In conclusion, although McGoldrick's work might be thought-provoking, its arguments and methodologies leave much to be desired. Unanswered questions, overlooked interpretations, and major historians, theologians, and philosophers prove to be significant hurdles which McGodlrick's article cannot overcome on its own merit.

References

De Tocqueville, Alexis. 1840. Democracy in America. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth.

Locke, John. 1689. Two Treatises of Government. (M. Goldie, Ed.) London: Everyman.

Mayhew, Jonathan. 1750. "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance
to the Higher Powers." TeachingAmericanHistory.org.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=905 (May 29, 2010)

McCullough, David. 2006. 1776. New York: Simon & Schuster.

McGoldrick, James. 1977. 1776: A Christian Loyalist View. Fides Et Historia , 26-42.

Tyler, Moses Coil. 1895. The Party of the American Loyalists in the American Revolution. The
American Historical Review , 1, 24-45.