Gerard Pacillo

This book argues that the cause of the American Revolution was the development of a comprehensive theory by American elites—a theory that provided them with a way to make sense of the growing conflict with the mother country, and that eventually persuaded a majority of them of the need to revolt. The theory had roots in various sources and traditions; but the key ideas, according to Bailyn, were those of seventeenth-century English opposition writers like Trenchard and Gordon. The anti-authoritarian ideas of these pamphleteers helped to fuse Revolutionary thought into a coherent and comprehensive view of politics. The various elements of this comprehensive view could be reduced to three important ideas. First, the Americans felt that power and liberty were logically and historically inconsistent ideas, with the former naturally and constantly threatening the latter. Second, they perceived the need for a balanced constitution, in order to check the natural aggressiveness of power. Third, they held to a cyclical view of history, in which civic virtue underwent periodic declines and revivals. In their eyes, England had undergone such a loss of liberty to the temptations of power, only to gain it back in 1688. The American revolutionaries felt that the venerable English constitution was engaged in yet another struggle with encroaching power. If the causes of the American Revolution were reduced to a simple (and probably simplistic) “economics vs. ideas” dichotomy, then the book would come down firmly on the side of ideas. Bailyn wants to downplay the causative influence of purely economic motives. He is not asking whether the ideas in the above-mentioned comprehensive theory resulted simply from the domination of ruling elites; rather, he is trying to get “inside” the Revolutionary mind, in order to understand how that mind interpreted events. At any rate, it is difficult—if not impossible—to disentangle which ideas resulted from the self-interest of ruling elites, and which resulted from disinterested philosophical contemplation. Even though the focus is on ideas, these ideas should not be confused with philosophical concepts. Another question that Bailyn is not asking is whether the ideas of the Revolutionaries were true or false, because he is more interested in causation. History is replete with men who were moved to risk life and fortune for a false creed. Yes, the American revolutionaries both imbibed and spewed out propaganda; nevertheless, ideas used in the service of propaganda are not necessarily false, and they are certainly capable of influencing events. In short, these ideas can acquire causative and explanatory power, both for the participants themselves and for historians. Ideas have consequences, even if they are “merely” instrumental.