I a CATIONS FOR EDUCATION D. HORITY VERSITY I UNI ' r!» of Ed a [CA]. ANALYSIS Ll N STATE A CRIT Thai: for III. Dog WITH SOME MICHIG-A AMERICAN CULTURE AND AUT 1 1.4a... Full #5.. mm“? .11.; 11.1.% Y ....1_.1..1. 1111...“. Lamw. 31:11.... .11. .waih 15“.: am}: .réyv r»x.-..v~.v) .1: 1% 1%.. . _ .1".— I y: .mfl.1 ru : x H111 1 1143?...- . 11 . 1 x.1.¢:.tul 1 1 1 1 . .77.]...- I .31. .21 11!...111tflz v .rm....r Irdflimwrra .1..I.mm. )3: 1111.1... 1. II 1 1.1. v . .. .. .1 1.11.5.1. ,..11u.1u,......_.. This is to «‘11in final the Iht‘sis entilImI Imerican Culture and Authority: A Critical Analysis, with Some IT'If‘liCC tivns for Facatifin presented In] I. . Lloyd Hillicm has been acreplc-d hmanls IuIIilIIm-nt of the requirelncrms Iur _‘£..D_‘ : ' __ do-qrve in." 111:? tifin .’ ,1, /////€ l‘.,-“'<:.{l//’ // I . . ‘ . ’ Majur prnIPser Date 41111;." 17 5 3.9 36 0-169 ‘uh 4 LIBRAR Y 3 “11.29:?!” Smc L Univ ' “ 1L U’Mty 4| q. ‘- 1;};7IOAN CULTURE AND AUTHORITY: EIlILLSIs, WITH SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION By AUBREY LLOYD PULLIAM I I A THESIS ' I Sublitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of I Ohigan State University of Agriculture and I ‘Pplied Science in partial fulfillment of ' t e requirements for the degree of v . DOCTOR OF EDUCATION ‘V ”filartnent of Foundations of Education \ 1 I Year 1956 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS to Dr. Milosh Munty Of his Guidance Committee, chairman an, for his invaluable To other members of his Guidanc e Committee, Dr. Qbfie H. Campbell, Dr. John F. Thaden, and Dr. Cecil V. .*5“ com FIRST mow WHERE WE ARE. AND WHITHER m: '7'}: 359m. I: COULD BETTER JUDGE WHAT TO DO, AND HOW "~ :7" “I; : .. Abraham Lincoln, A House Divided, I ' , , Address at Springfield, Illinois, "‘ «‘3‘. 1858 l 4“ ‘ g ‘3," l ‘ I \ ‘ D , 5 100‘ '~ ..p ‘- fl ' cm, . .| ‘ ‘ Iteiv ‘ By ' t . AUBREY LLOYD PULLIAM 'jfitencrr .9 F‘Ouudv» fi" ..'.”e.i «.3. ”I, , ‘1‘ ‘ \l‘y. ‘ a v!‘*-“ ' ' AN ABSTRACT " £43.15 5 « )5“,$ted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Hichigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of , . I V L' l DOCTOR OF EDUCATION ‘I l I Yin» * ' out of Foundations of Education hex. ‘ '_1;.; tour 1956 5 Aubrey Lloyd Pulliam . 1'1 _ ‘ 'v'aacr or THESIS Au ?:--‘ seretand the behavior of the peOple with whom 1 111. ' 0hope to be more effective as leaders. éenplex of "authority" is most influential in my), Uni-1&0 of ethnic communities, in urban sociocultural areas uflh‘fil’erl‘fingland and the South, but including metropolitan cities in She-initial States. a“ ‘10 i : The individual is central in the ideological foundation under— menthority in American Protestant culture. Cultural patterns with reinforce individualism are freedom, independence, self- ‘t.’ r \ ma. equality, antipathy to control, and self-interest phrased ' .0 ”41:111. . 1 _ . “2"; Wistic success. Moral and religious sanctions support :1; -.1 3;"; 0 ““ 'L%‘¢§j\ eras. 10mm Hills ideology holds forth to urban man the glories of ‘0 ‘ his environment, characterized by dependence and .» 4° . . 1- then. Resultant conflicts in sochety and person- , an, 1 :fiiificult to predict behavior in authority relations; ,glatt be evaluated On its own merits. E“ tie individual includes those activities it __\\‘.30f1ltil’3 .. .;. w 1- iii}: alone. , L1 Yet there is considerable material in ' o and fragments, that, were it brought together in e ‘t 4‘? very useful in the field of educational theory. tin ..:‘ American-s», take little time for the study of ‘-‘;i- 3‘ is to “try something", I" '0 " At o. ‘ . . v. 3. I ,q I I ‘ l I lIII‘ll a... ,. {Moe-1y, the incidence of error and failure 7‘ ~- 1. ’ 3 high. Ln integration of Psychology, Sociology, "I- I ‘ __‘vliological Science is badly needed as the founda- “ Jidu‘oators can rely to lead their communities in the fifzeluoational problems. The purposes of this study lie Va ’4‘); I I massacre]. framework. "J On purpose of this study is to try to bring together some 0‘4m'laterials that concern a few of the major universals of “when culture. A second purpose is to try to develOp some in- dshh and understandings of these cultural complexes through the . ”mutt” of their historical development. A third purpose, which “Mount of‘the second, is to try to gain a total view, and per— lap-vent leaning, of the develoPment of an urban culture and society, L A'L“ I" “that in the United States. No one can give much thought to } t“flifl'film without being forceably struck by the cultural lag that W, L “Mild-tune United States. We are attempting to solve our , ”With a culture that is decades behind the environment in u ‘ .1 0" L. «(We 1 . . 9...)»1611'0 aware of the "physical" environment in which I: n.“ “ye-"L.- “11, 117.3; but many people are unaware of its . A. e "' V when.” lives in the international, national, 'Vzlw' ' 1 fl . a Q fir "= _-,. so complex is urban society in our complex . It .' ‘ 1. fi » {doubtful if few Americans actually realise " {3‘ £5; _w r ‘ flag, J. Jul." ~ - ‘-,r I ‘1‘ ~ ‘: fugue! the fictifififou» _ 1+. 3 tom. Neither do many peOple realize that 135 I, 7 :vhe If"! .h "are in a position to, and do, exercise indirect ~ date economic affairs of the American citizen. “WWI lute cultural lag is present in education is all too We -’Iu the state of Michigan, for example, we view a situation mm» from the one room rural school with a few pupils and Meteecher. to the huge administrative organization of a big city "5001 Intel! with over 200,000 pupils and over 8,000 teachers. “national concepts have not kept pace with the rapid development ' 0f an urban society. but in spite of these general problems one finds teachers who I” my effective in leading students, one finds superintendents ‘u “Minds who are very effective in leading faculty and citizens, Him eohools and other educational organizations which are very With serving their communities. One finds also far too many “Hm ineffective. Why - why this difference? We have any i w‘ ;..Illiere‘, and much advice on how to be successful in these ' But no answer or combination of answers seems to be ism educational problems seem to be growing faster wolved. Yet, if all human behavior is caused, 5‘s“:- “fell-8h: into the cultural patterns which are it mu m be able to advance a little in K . e. Jud.“ educate”... g‘el‘h” Jf‘r' 5. {ubih‘avu they may learn how to be more effective ~ . ..V '7'“; i- role of leadership. -wV1."13"1uediately faced with the question of where to “wk”. It soon becomes evident, in studying American «Imaging: the basic culture complex which, more than any other, Wind directs the behavior of the American citizen, is that 4n I? “9102.111“ we call "authority". The basic thing that makes the \ mum different from the European or Asiatic, outside of the influence in physical environment, is the way authority is phrased in the culture. For to have authority is to have leadership; to delegate authority is to delegate to someone else the role of leader- ‘MP- The difference in authority patterns in two cultures, one Mmtioally oriented, and the other authoritarian, are many. The “erican, for example, if he is free to follow the dominant cultural 1mm. delegates authority to the group, and divides it wherever ”Mule. The'European, on the other hand, delegates authority to “Mikkel, and centralizes it wherever pOSsible. The American ‘ ”@lnthority to the successful;" the EuroPean to those of 1.“ i. -j on, talent, and education. These are basic differences Wicca into the psychological systems of individuals ur“(.~mf.rent cultures, differences which direct the - I' .. , xxw‘» that one of the major problems of .‘43‘: V:""‘ ~ ' 1'? be) «'71,. .‘ f 36,” culture and ”3513 3‘ I . . e5“ 1' V v ;_-. _. u _ . r |_. I 6. "'7'“ gral, and of education in particular, is the ‘1‘“? 4,3], for leadership. The combination of these two . ""othe development of this study around the patterns 3 M , v ' v'J, 513.1)". ! ’ -. “nicer: culture and society. 3 ‘r" - : _,',..§onnea, and Muntyan have made some excellent studies Waughority in education. Their studies are philosophical, ”Little they do not neglect conditions, they are centered on what Wt to be”; this study attempts to state conditions as they are, "will: authority in American culture and society, the conditions I1“! [his]: educators are confronted and must work. For in order to ‘09 More we ought to be", we are forced to start from "where we 0'0" this study, then, is attempting to shed some light on where lo are, in regard to authority, so educators may have a better socio- Mtlnl basis on which to begin work toward closing the gap toward MO they ought to be. h I study of this sort, the diversity of American culture and .islediately presents a problem. Indeed, it is this hetero— fist in part Of the authority problem itself. In no other .iIorld have educators set for themselves such a difficult ’, fi- . WAY. so they attempt to give all the people a highschool , must perform this task in one of the most complex i ii. the world. auction! cultur° as "loose. experimental. g» characteristics run theta. {$3 ‘1‘ , .( ~-° 7. - culture. Thus we may expect the main patterns ‘ . f rouculture to have opposing themes and patterns. not cultural complexity plus the dominant theme While being cognizant of #43313 ' J . I. , :. w ‘t necessarily toleration). W Y Hammad-patterns, we are here concerned with the dominant metasthority in American culture. Because of this socio- flflfll} pluralism and complexity, we can do no more than attempt to «sum evgeneral frame of reference relative to American patterns 0’ “thorny, a frame of reference which may serve as a starting point for teachers, administrators, and educational leaders to use in 0mm; the problems of authority in the context of the "specific mm situation" in which they are working. SCOPE OF THE STUDY The complexity of American culture and society, coupled With “Inuit: 0! studies in the area, makes it necessary to limit the 4 “a?! this etudy. There are almost no materials available on While Catholic . ‘ are and society in the United States. " ur-utionally dominant, it is certainly an important h society, and is most important in the area of Hal-our study. by implication, will show. In , than sociocultural conditions will vary .~‘,;m group type 0: ointment“ ‘V‘ .~. - ‘I .- ’ ‘ s I .- 8. "p 1‘35,th use highly urbanizedin character. We 'Mfihe fact that there are, in our society, many cholesicsl systems have been formed in Old . . ,.‘Iho are living in ethnic communities and make little madman to the dominant American cultural patterns. In “$393081“! and the New England states there are thOSe whose mtu9.1e.aristocratic in character. Also excluded are those peOple flthjuflwriuuien personalities, comprising some 10% of the pOpula- no.5 hose exclusions leave as the scape of this study the Protestant 0111“")! those white, democratically oriented, third generation brim, who reside outside of ethnic communities, in the urban Mofltlu'el areas outside of New England and the Deep South, but “Will metrOpolitan cities in the United States. w'L ‘1 -’f‘ N ' METHODOLOGY -,. $31} "f ’03 this type is necessarily confined to the available HI , Loos of literature in the field. As we have already ‘2; 1:- p .- our purposes is to try to bring together into a 1' its: - the fee contemporary materials relative to f. ‘m ”A" ‘- ‘ adequate insight and understanding into and to begin to get some meaning out of individual ‘ : Vg'avknowledge of our cultural development, of its fly?“ Away-mi of the English and American experience that ‘m hm. us. Margaret Mead outlines for us the importance "'NOilulcdge of historical experience in the understanding of Wary culture. In her words, "Our behaviors, good and bad, 0113mm“ and Our weaknesses are the resultant of the choices, Winter: and involuntary, of those who have gone before us...The m upon the culture, in the very bodies and souls of the next mention..."6 his is why, in a. Protestant culture, we have started our study 4th the Reformation, and have tried to select out of the mass of Material materials those that are most pertinent to the problem at experience Of generations of men, in a changing world, leaves its 3 1 “it Certainly it is the essence of the Protestant Reformation and ‘bmdlorican Revolution, in combination with several decades of ”may“; and .xperience, that gives authority in the United , .i . “an unique and peculiarly American character. Certainly - tubuleng of men's struggles over the authority ' W“: . {he . til ““037 of fiestern civilization, one cannot ’31. «sh. , 1‘ “thorny relationships in American V' ‘ _ ”Fractional content, and the moral and re- ouwu‘ '~ I r. r- .‘pxmer ." v'»..“"' o.y'. ‘\ _ S w 10. LIKIMTIONS or THIS STUDY .3 . .afi. ‘ . 5,! "‘4 3:03 pointed out that one of our purposes in this study ' 3.11.4 some light on the problems of authority in American "uh: :- film, with particular reference to education. In order not to de- {Get this purpose, and in the interests of intellectual rigOr, it is hporetiu that the limitations of the study he pointed out. First of all it should be made clear that this is not a complete we. of American culture in relation to authority. Our study, in . itl historical aspects, dwells heavily on the Calvinistic heritage of fiction culture as it developed out of New England Puritanism. This W18 has been chosen because the evidence supports this stream of culture on being very influential in American cultural development and ' "mi-Ill dominance in American society. This is particularly true u "mic the major cultural motive of self-interest expressed in thrillietic terms. Moreover, this Calvinistic motivation has been - . )h-H. “littlest influence in the deveIOpment of freedom, self-reliance, ‘ 4?! “Wendell“, the conditions necessary for the exercise of demo- “ .:‘° l Ag: 2:! Mhority by the individual. . .6..ij eat the muacript, it will be called to the attention of ' ‘05:: “it other etreams and segments of American culture are ' in?” :5; the Galvinietic heritage has been emphasized 4 “:11: impression that it is presented as the conplgt. t“ s can culture. Nothing could be further ' ~ - l 413$.tx A". :."- 93?: . *r M ta. A41... m ‘ m phrasing of authority in human relationships in American Millet Cslvinistic. This expression is uniquely a product of fieNeill relationships which developed out of some twenty-five decades 0! frontier living. While some of the consequences of Calvinism were {Billie lroltier society, the frontier environment soon modified the ." authoritarian character of social relationships found in early Puritan- ilI- is the frontier developed, the expression of authority in social Pelltimhips became thoroughly democratic in character. In selecting out of some four centuries of human experience in Intern civilisation those events which were felt to be most pertinent to the development of authority relations in American culture and lociety. there has been the risk of leaving out some pertinent events, ell because of this circumstance, of lending too much emphasis to Others. But when 11-, is impossible to cover all of the material in de- mv selection and choice are inevitable. Because of this limitation OI «(m In been made to choose those references which are commonly “mime:- recognition. "‘:>“..,-':esirable also to call attention to the lack of studies in ‘ ”.1 it‘ll stone. is a consequence, it has been necessary to I on are! studies. The writer is aware of this s ‘ ' its a generalisation of the results. Horeover, s .. A. , y, 7.. v.1 studies do oust, other social .. .I_ _—‘ \‘I 1“ . (.- .' .xz. sfiu‘tioal to the original study, so that the use :1?» human judgment and evaluation. It has been I _ ‘ 5'! h'l'jjae instances. to use existing studies as far as . ~ 0 , ' mind then use reason and logic to further develop a ”We! be; said, man is a "reasoning", not a "reasonable" QQXdQOflholess, reason and lagic are most useful where studies ; “m 011“. but to need be ever cognizant of their limitations con- ‘u'lill hm behavior. If the reader will view this study as an attempt to develop some 1 "idem concerning authority relations in Protestant American culture, 1! h. reeliue that it should be evaluated and tested befOre its use 5‘. "m 00010.1 situation, and that it merely serves as a frame of "finite. {or further action, then he will have this study in preper ”motive. I“ :0 non define a few terms, before we bring together the mm on herican culture and authority. 13. 10138 .l' . V,*,¢t;{‘vj.i,"*£uthority And Social Change," in Authority And The ' it ; ‘ y , Inward Tercentenary Conference Of Arts And Sciences, ' 5‘11. ,‘leeuchusette: Harvard University Press, 1937, pp. 170- MAJ ,‘l ' 30 lean, Kenneth 1)., A Concegtion Of Authority, Columbia University, feather! College, Contributions to Education, No. 895, New York: ’ Gem University Press, 1943. Jo lentyu, Hiloeh, "Community School Concepts: A Critical Analysis," 1: School, Committee On The Community School, Nelson 3. leery, Editor, 52nd Yearbook of the National Society for the ltldglgalducation, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953, PP. . #. “111m, Robin w. Jr., American Societ , New York: Alfred A. km, 1952, p. 323 5- Qloted by Silvey, Ted F., "Technology And Cultural Lag," Adult M1. Vol. IV, No. 5, November, 1955, p. 30. ‘— 6' ”“4: Margaret, And Kee Your Powder Dr , New York: William Home end co., 1952, p. 120. .‘fm‘fiat first of all we define what we mean by The term ' his! ‘lew we propose to use it in this study. a ' ' k We}! abstraction, a construct which describes the man- W 6! the environment. be general tern, "culture" means the total social heredity 0! unkind, while as a specific term "a culture" means a particular eta-eh of social heredity.1 The culture of mankind, therefore, is ‘ “IMHO of a number of "cultures", each of which pertains to a de- finite group of individuals. at“)! say vary in size. Two or more persons may comprise a 1‘11, 01' an informal group, while a national group, such as China, "I have as any as 500,000,000 people. The term "social" implies the interaction of human beings, and "heredity" implies not only mean and inheritance, but also the element of time. Cultures «0 developed through the interaction of human beings over a period ”my did thus the size and age of any group are influential Winn. nature of its culture. Winn Question is what is included in the term "social heredity" 1‘ 'Halinoweki would include in the term "culture" inherited {technical processes, ideas, habits, values, and em“ to be "the basic social habits, emotions, "7J1, .min. from the point of nerettne'mnr» .. + . ,_ Mu . . 5-4 . - .,‘ I am Davis, "culture may be objectively defined ., _ in»: which he has learned in conformity with the , , _ oPsiii‘gx-oup. This group may be his family, his play Mm his colleagues in work, his same sex companions, his Woe“, his political party, or all of these groups together."3 MW“ defines culture as "a construct that describes the tote]. body of belief, behavior, knowledge, sanctions, values, and (“ll that sark the way of life of any peOple ... in the final analysis it capriees the things that people have, the things they do, and what they think ... (culture) is manifested in institutions, thought patterns, ”d uterial objects."4 In this study we shall use this general de- finition of culture . It is apparent that culture has its ideological or super-organic “Puts, which are manifested in observable social institutions, attitudes, behavior, material artifacts, and technical processes. .1100" cannot talk about culture without being aware of the total m...” and all it includes, it would appear that the use of the term Whom" to describe both organic and super-organic aspects of . m ' 019410" definitive term of greater clarity' We Pr°P°se t° "V57 " . 1. “,1. way in this study. When speaking of the super- ef culture alone we shall most often use the term ‘ Hop" , I? [Unvidnel in reference to culture we shall ’0". ‘ ‘ »~ ' , . ... ”I!“ that in its specific sense culture I w ._-‘ .;‘lr . QM“ especially important in the area of human relationships, View-M's an Opportunity to point out many times. This study ism concerned with the ideological aspects of authority as “0! ere sauifest in behavior in human relationships in American culture and society. Of secondary concern are the social institutions Itich hericans have devised to implement their ideolOgy of authority. for the purpones of this study we shall refer to the term "society" ”In! group of people with a social structure. Both formally organized We, such as a church or labor union, and informal groups, such as chiendship clique, are included in this definition. AUTHORITY IN AMERICAN CULTURE k 9‘5 erican Democratic Authority "Isn't" "Villain concepts of authority in American culture at the intell- Whom are European in character, are based on European cultures, “We“ do not correspond to the on-going day-to-day human ‘0‘: the American people, as we will show later in some 3 . I , ' .A,’ “1,.".... .3 \ .._"-‘ ' g. ‘ulchole, writing in the EncycIOpedia of 1 v ,7; “Ethel-it! as "the capacity, inate or acquired, manifestation "of "'5" e. ‘- J? a group. It is a ‘WJt Pdfrocfi, ,V: 1 _. .' ‘_ :h‘ , -; s '.' . 1‘ '.‘ ‘A‘. ‘- '41". ' 7‘ wk‘ 0 K ,arise nor be preserved without the establishment . . -cs of distance between those who command and those who ”humid: authority rests on mere physical coercion it is accepted UMIMM, although acceptance may be due to a fear of force."5 libel-ion society there are some communities which still retain then-Mean culture, and some social institutions which are authori- tsriasis character. But with these exceptions, it appears that Michels' definition is not in keeping with the practice of authority relationships “American culture. iscendencynobedience~-social distance--p0wer-- thesekey terse in Michels' definition are at home in a culture of kings, Iristccrats, and patriarchs, where the predominant human relationship is ole of ruler and subject, as found in a rigid class society. It is the essence of American experience and culture that such an ideology was "hated first as a consequence of the Protestant Reformation, and secondly W the forces which won the American Revolution. The Revolution was, Wm Other things, a contest between two different concepts of My. so say that American ideology denies canoepts of authority mm.” culture, does not deny that practice in authority Wrasse people in American society may be European in ‘ r-frz....._ . "I. , ‘Mu ~ once" 1. a word that is almost foreign to social N __ ant culturto This does not mean that the .. " H r,_'n1dfll that it is accufi’irm‘ .. a if u, :___ .I‘ that represents more nearly the ' b‘. 9-1,: . w p . I , a not most Americans when they are in a social * _ ‘mi-they feel it their best interests to accept out- ‘.' 'Ilreetion of their behavior by others. Children conform ”mm!” 01' parents because they fear that the parents' love will am. the allowance reduced, or use of the family car denied. heather-contents to the boss' orders because he wants a promotion, the fittest conforms to the teacher's direction because he wants a deer». “other such conformity implies also the approval and psycho- 1031"]. acceptance of the leadership of the person of superior status Wide entirely upon the nature of the social relationship between “90:10: and subordinate, and the psychological pre-diSpositions of the m persons. One needs to look only briefly at the American Wrience and heritage to see why "obedience" as a term is largely rejected in American culture. Personal responsibility of the individual "I Originally the major tenet of the Protestant Reformation. Independ- Mesd self-reliance have been characteristics which were demanded mm Others in a frontier environment and a highly competitive m3 is a result, most parents, in the socialization process of W children, inculcate into their psychological systems the p . “dependence, self-reliance and personal achievement.6 In '1" 9-" , es enough conformity is inculcated to try to insure ’ p and order in society; lower class parents may ”lame“ to disobey superiors, since laws and , ,_ #1,,“ society, represented by the superior, I_ ‘ o (-3" m. Iierstedt is the author of a definition of authority matches cited for use by sociologists. He elaborates his defini- ties of authority as follows: Authority is institutionalized power....it is in the formal organisations of the associations that social power is trans- forced into authority...the right to use force is then attached to certain statuses within the association, and this right is Ordinarily what we mean by authority. It is thus authority in Virtue of which persons in an association exercise command or control over other persons in the same association. It is authority which enables a bishOp to transfer a priest fros his parish... a policeman to arrest a citizen who has Violated a law. Power in these cases is attached to statuses not to persons, and is wholly institutionalized as authority. moutedt is correct in defining "formal authority" as institu- tionalised power. But such a definition includes only one segment of “thou-1t: relationships in American culture and society. Again because “sirestier heritage, a fear and distrust of formal government, and “steed of the formality associated with aristocracy, the American M)!" in: preferred to deal informally whenever possible. We informality is consistent with the major cultural universal 1...}? g ... end the flexibility of informal relationships serves well ‘ 4 :‘ tflltual universal of "self-interest." For these reasons ‘) if“ “shanty relationships in American culture are on the W those within formal organisations. It is only M to be performed and the numbers ct a}; This is not to deny that formal authority I ' ' ‘cleed‘when informal authority would serve better, or ' f ' ' n-mor all, which type of authority is used will be de- Wh the peeple making the decision, and the judgment of human iii-In is subject to error. It is a common pattern in American culture 2&3...“ the informal level how authority shall be constituted, and F the: u a letter of record and means of enforcement of the agreement, to constitute it formally in writing. In certain segments of the society 111011“. authority relationships are used most entirely. Hunter des— mm the authority relationships of the Power Structure in Regional 61‘! as almost entirely informal, for the obvious reason that those who lield power in a society where democracy is a universal ideology, are I0: unions to have their dealings Open to the public vievv.9 The power We, according to Hunter, use the formal authority structure to “dud.“ the exercise of power in public projects which requires the mummy people to accomplish. Or, as in the case where the ‘ We Party was denied a place on the state election ballot, the \Wfl state government was utilized by the power leaders to H , ‘t , . - "W M;p.1tion’ and place at their disposal the courts and ”roe such e. legalized decision originally made at the '. _7 n e..- ...‘e .7 1 _ ”.1 “gm-u]. authority relationships which ' K . name: an: to include, an elaboration .‘\ . Tier- 5\ ‘\'; ’mhority" is not consistent with the patterns of Mumps in democratic American society. He speaks . ‘ e are exercising a "role of office" in a formal associa- I .;- -' a“ ggsperoising "command and control over other persons in the same I .§ _ allocation.“ 'hile the terms "command and control" may describe the Mt: relationships of the Power Structure which Hunter infers is in control of most American cities,losuch terms do not describe the feelings of the majority of Americans concerning authority. These terms describe authority relationships in an authoritarian society. Indeed, as Hunter points out, it is only by virtue of the economic Vulnerability of citizens in a capitalistic, urban society, plus control 01 the press and the machinery of government, that the Power Structure 11 continues to exercise its control. The majority of citizens do not ”Prove 0! control by the power leaders, but few are in a position to resist it. hen in such authoritarian societies as the Armed Services or a motion, authority is won by "leadership with", rather than "command “Bird over" the members of the organization. Here again the n. ., “In. in cultural patterns. The American is taught to be inde- _‘ ‘7', .‘a self-roliG-nt' and because of this rebels inwardly if not ,H inothcr pug,“ attempts to command or control his actions. ‘§;;°n£ruh is taught from birth to obey persons of I ’MVHt-h‘ 1. at home in an authoritarian culture and “flail-k. goat of the decisions._ The; best U. .- flGé’le . '--.I --):;. :3 one no ;. , .7 \.,“_' . m 3 , 31p». .. _. “I . T 1% and reactions of Americans in an authoritarian .10". J ’ ' -. - ‘slzlonnnental studies on the American soldier. ‘fih‘one of the premises of this study that American authority sunfish; unique among the cultures of the world, and are based on the ideolog, if not the practice, of democracy. It is a further We that European concepts of authority were ideologically rejected «:1: in the experience of the American peOple, that democratic re- lationships were largely practiced under the conditions of frontier 11'1“. and have been only slowly replaced in practice, but not in ideology, by authoritarian relationships as the society has become "be! and bureaucratic in character. It is very important, in under- Mding the behavior of American citizens, to distinguish between the ideology, the beliefs and psychological feelings of the individual enflmgsuthority, and the actual practice of authority in human vol-mumps. m, Authority De fined fies I. _ . '0 hate tried to discuss what authority "is not" in American _ _,,.I . I" let us try to describe what it is. For a partial defini- uX. ty we quote from Chester I. Barnard, who bases his I r- U I . ority on many years of experience in human relations as I; Jersey Bell Telephone Company. I ‘ 4* nova . a, 'I ‘eharacter of a communication (order) in a form '~ I; which it is accepted by a contribute; g... ' . ~ -:r tion as governing the action he court.- , . cation is accepted by «Q gQ 4». , . ', . ‘ t ”I. 1 K 1, _ . a l(. . .4 I‘. . V .. 319‘ '. L ,. " Qua authority for him is confirmed or established. ' “ . 3"” ted as the basis for action. Disobedience of such a ’fl , 0111'! a denial of its authority for him. Therefore, ' ‘; this definition the decision as to whether an order has “QM?!" not lies with the persons to whom it is addressed, “(does not reside in "persons of authority" or those who issue . «Mex-dorm...” net Dal-nerd is describing here may be either formal or informal authority in a formal organization. The communication he refers to may he tone]. and written, such as for example, a written instructioa from "II. the president to all department heads. It may also be merely a spoken request from a foreman to one of the laborers, in which case it would be informal. But the key to Bernard's definition is the fact that authority depends upon the acceptance of the communication by the one Ito receives it. We may expect, in any organization which is representa- ‘ tive of the total social structure, that acceptance of a communication ‘ eay range from positive psychological acceptance to complete rejection. “on an individual gives positive psychological acceptance to a communi- “tin. then the initiator of the communication has received a full Wt 01 authority in that specific instance. If the individual feels tree to act, his overt behavior will reflect the nature and degree of ”Small“ or rejection of a communication. . . at. unexplain why, and under what conditions, authority 1193 it ”I?" j, , .. dilate. Perhaps our explanation will have greater clarity ‘ ;erample of a factory foreman who supervises a work tan a Were who are assembling generators. The role and V '1; '. 3 —v 1 r r ‘1 . . o . ‘ . . . "hugging-...“, us other things, 3..fi.;,.¥t%sr‘ ‘v \ I‘ ’ . ‘ u. ... V . - \.- -' _¥_ ._' .. {— Il‘ 21*. _ . ' first aid to worker's injuries, making out production . 4} \\ ‘Mtting communications from the Plant Superintendent to '- \ “limits“ the supervision of his work team. The success of the {Mrhdldged primarily by the production output nitrite supervision. of the work team g new workers and making out production "P0P“ lies entirely “Nlplish. within the competence of the forman himself to ' The authority to accomplish these things, therefore, lies Within the individual foreman. nnerator. but "there of the entire work team are required for the high production °r hunters , "3'"- It is within the power of the worker to give 01‘ deny the munitions which are authority, in this case, lies with the subordinates or to accomplish successfully, authOrity lies "ithin the .‘. ' 31!. In those activities which require the effective ‘o' 1 ttooatnb utions of more than one person. authority 11“ 'ith ‘ ' ’ . _" is" k , II“. but unless what he does is approved and ‘ .\ J. g . s g ‘3 c “emotion is of no value in any My: 1",” 25. of a group, and he is no longer, in that ry or an army, the fact of “MSW-late authority soon becomes apparent in profits or losses, ‘ Victories or defeats. In other Organizations, such as a school, it I‘ W 5' l0" difficult to recognize subordinate authority, because the ‘ individual learnings 01’ pupils are difficult to evaluate and quantify. the acceptance or rejection of the superior's leadership, “ample, usually initiate and lead the activities of ”Meats and workers. The responses of students and workers are highly “nun" by the stimuli they receive from the teacher or foreman. HOW m “Porior pin-33 es his role, “Mose of his subordinates, and the authority which is granted him. “ ‘7 “I. therefore, therefore, is a major determinant in the that the authority relationship is reciprocal be- M “Dori” and subordinate. “an“, - '1'. the relationship between superior and subOrdinate 13 .2: ‘1‘: wl‘at‘ interdependence in regard to authority and c°ntr°1° Th. 1“?“ . *‘ or his position. may be in control of the subordinate's '\ at W. The subordinate is in control of his own -I(: > ' I i 7:} ...-g ,, V0111 relation to the euperior's leadership, . . m 1 u 1. I '-.\ v ‘. . ‘ _“\" \ e. .- wvf.‘ . ‘ ' “hereunto relationship which we have just described. Some superiors ! ‘° 3“ need the authority of subordinates to advance, and some subor- dinates are not under the hie superior's control in regard to advancement. 1‘ Porticularly true in highly organized and closely controlled ““10““ such as the specialists in 1'Nl'lotries where Fading, the medical profession, and in the labor unions have a great deal to say about job "mini-0118. wage scales, and working conditions. “110 we have used the superior-subordinate relationship on which to : cone “3‘ °°n°ept 0f authority, we must point out that every human re . hum“? 18 an authority relationship. Whether the relationship be Nthen parent and child, Mr. teacher and pupil. 1’ W . 91: disapproval ”Hing-1s the relatio husband and wife, sister and brother, peer and oreman and worker, and so on, the factor of e acceptance or rejection of the human behavior nship, is present in some degree. 5 O ' Wt! relations are common, also, between individuals and ( “jaw 99 between two or more groups. When we speak 0f H .k -' g3;_“1‘8'o111-ze.1::10n, we need to recognize "that authority 7‘ ‘ .. , r from all the contributors to a cooperatin " “o Agata,» attributed to the attitude or 27. individuals varies...the maintenance of an organization requires the authority of all; essential contributors."14 An industrial organization, for example, has in it factory workers, foremen, union stewards, engineers, departmental heads, and various kinds of executives. Some of these peOple, because of their position, skill, or leadership, hold more authority within their control than do others. It requires executives with a great deal of sociocultural skill to know how to veigh the various peOple in the social structure of their organization relative to their 3.9.2:; authority. Failure to evaluate these factors correctly has cost organizations incalculable damage in inefficiency, labor troubles, and profits. Within social organizations of all kinds, corporations, schools, factories, and so on, there appears to be a sort of "community of authority" among the organization members. This is a group attitude which is informally arrived at and which is always in the process of change as events change within an organization. This feeling regarding the activities of any organization is peculiarly the product of its members, and comes from their daily interaction as they associate to- gether in their many cliques. How this informal "organization feeling" is deve10ped is one of the amazing facts of social relationships, but apparently some employees, whose official functions facilitate the role, Serve as the communicators between informal groups. While eXperienced superiors and many subordinates appear to realize that actual authority in many activities resides in the 28. subordinate, both maintain the myth or fiction that authority lies with the superior. This fiction has its practical side, however. It enables subordinates to accept orders from superiors without making an issue of them and without feeling subservient, or losing individual status Iith peers. The fiction of superior authority also serves to place the responsibility for organization decisions on the superior, who is in a much better position to make them than is a subordinate. The fiction of superior authority also tends to depersonalize a communication, EiVing impersonal notice that it is issued for the good of the Organiza- Sign, with the subordinate's own self-interest at stake as a part of the greater whole.l5 Good administrative procedure demands that communications should not; be issued that cannot be and will not be accepted. Experienced executives know that to do so destroys authority, discipline, and morale.“ This means that the effective administrator will need to know at all times what authority has been granted him by his subordinates, peers, and superiors, where social power and authority lies within the SOCiel structure of his organization, and how to go about securing authority which is needed for action. We may say that in American culture and society, democratic authority in any specific situation which involves two or more persons, is that condition where the action of leadership is approved by the “Writ? of peOple involved in that social situation. 29. But there is another condition which must also be present before authority may be effective. When a person is elected to the office of township supervisor, for example, he is given majority approval to provide leadership in exercising the rights, duties, and privileges of that office. The role of township supervisor includes the authority to repair the roads to the township. But if there is no money in the treasury the supervisor cannot repair the roads. He cannot exercise his authority without the $2393 to do so, and so the authority which accompanies his role as supervisor is not effective, and actually, in fact, is not authority until the means are available to exercise it. We must enlarge our definition of democratic authority then, so that it includes not only majority approval 0f the action 0f leadershg, E33 also the means to effectively exercise such leadership. The authority which attaches to an office involves certain functions. Pigors states that the general function of authority is representation, and its specific functions are initiation, administration, minterpretation}? The person, for example, who occupies the office of teacher, represents the general community in mediating the culture to its youth. In his various roles, the teacher is reSponsible for initiating educational activities, and administering them effectively and efficiently so a maximum of learning Will occur. He is also respoasible for interpreting educational activities and their content so that laymen are able to understand and grasp the significant meanings from their educational experience . 30. Conditions Which Affect The Granting Of Authority There are four conditions, according to Barnard, which must occur simultaneously before an individual "can and will accept a communication as authoritative." These conditions are "(51) he can and does understand the communication, (b) at the time of his decision he believes that it is not inconsistent with the purpose of the organization, (c) at the time of his decision he believes it to be compatible with his personal interest as a whole, and ((1) he is able mentally and physically to comply with it."18 While Barnard is obviously talking about administrative matters in a corporate social structure, it would appear that his hypothesis may be widely applied. Certainly a communication from a superior which is, for any one of a number of reasons, not understood by a subordinate, 5.551113" no authority, no acceptance by him. A communication which is not understood has no meaning for a subordinate; the only thing he can do is either disregard it or ask that it be clarified until he does understand it. What action the subordinate does take in regard to a communication he does not understand will be determined by a complex of sociocultural factors. If the communication is from a superior to an immediate subordinate, however, the subordinate may, if he desireS. ask for a clarification of an unintelligible communication. If, on the other hand, the communication is from a corporation president to the workers on an assembly line, the social distance, both psychological and spatial, El. WSLCh normally separates the two, would prevent the worker from asking and receiving any clarification of such a communication. He could as}; we ° - ~- . . . . . .. “-0 immediate superior to clarify tne communication, or he could dis- regard it altogether . 0 If a communication appears incompatible with the purpose of an ore d anization as the subordinate understands it, psycholOgical conflict would be the immediate result, and in extreme cases, the subordinate 7A . . . 6011... not and would not comply with such a communication. For example: a SCnool superintendent who issued an order to teachers to let their pun ils Spend three hours a day on the playground for the next month '30 1‘ 1,‘ c , o - fl ‘ we u G be ashing teachers to Violate their View OI tne purpose 0f sci . . . . h “001' Interpretations of the purpose of an OI‘EIC'mlzatlon ls 511°C infl” ' w ‘ ' - uenced by Self-interest; teacners aIIO. pupils, for example, may have 01‘ A :9 . - ' ' a rent Views on the purposes of school actiVities. D . c . n ' Sel“interest is especially important as a determinant 0f the ind‘vi‘ I . , - n ‘ " *- ‘ oual S granting of authority. In Barnard's View, tne eklswnce Of a v! ' . ‘ . '7‘ let inducement is the only reason for accepting 9.9.1 order as naVinb al‘kom'i . . ° x ‘ “ ‘l‘vb'o hence, if such an order is received it must be disobeyea (ev ‘ a: . 3 . , . . ,, Ed 111 tne more usual cases) as utterly inconSistent With personal motives l, "19 d i'flat are the baSis of accepting any orders at all- Barnar POin‘ . '1' i ”8 Out further‘ that malinrfering and intentional lacn of dependability are oh . ...e , . a l Usual means 0f evading communications that are l’ercelved as coun‘e oer to self-interest . m‘n i.A e _ . . - ' cons why re are many phySical, emotional, and seeiocultural reas C“TOI‘din e. - ‘ ' an to 31390 Cannot comply with a communication. Ashcing a tall 111 "..‘r— 32. work at a job on an assembly line that is at knee level would be a physical impossibility. 0r asking one capable member of a work group to work at a faster rate than the whole group desires to work could not be accepted without loss of social status and being subjected to working conditions which are socially intolerable. The Difference Between "Authority" and "Control" \\ ‘_ diStinguiSh between "authority" and "control". Laswell makes an excellent differentiation between the two: "We distinguish between authority and control since the king who reigns may not rule, and the elected Governor may be subservient to the unelected boss. Authority always carries with it some medicum of control, however tenuous; control may have no shred of authority. When expectations concerning who "ought" coiMide with who "does", authority and control can be reached at the Same address-"20 Authority exists in both democratic and authoritarian Onlture and society. It is the character of each type of authority, however, with which we need to be familiar, since both types are present in our SOCiety. We have already defined "democratic authority" as the pOSitive aPProval and acceptance, by the majority. Of SPeCific leaders, plus the means to exercise such authority as is delegated to leadership. This implies that the members of the majority "feel free" to exercise the” ch°i°°o and have the essential facts on which to base their choice °f leaders. It implies on the part of aspiring leaders the lack of any c ° of °ercion 01' arbitrary use Of their social power to 83111 a POSltion leadership, ‘7 In the case of the "men of power" which Hunter studied in Regional Cit!» authority rests wholly on the use or the threatened use of social Power to win and maintain dominance and control. The "men of power" who have control of affairs do not have the approval of the majority of citizens for their leadership; in fact, these power leaders isolate themselves and use every means possible, including control of the press and government, to keep the majority in a state of ignorance regarding the affairs of the community. The only authority which the men of p0wer hold is that approval of the ruling oligarchy 0f whiCh they are a part, P1118 their personal authority. The authority which subordinate members 01' the power structure have comes solely from an indiVidual in the ruling oligarchy, or from the collective oligarchy; it does not come from the majOrity 0f the citizens, who seldom know what is 805-118 On. Some authority exists whenever social action takes place. but it may or may not be democratic authority. Whenever social power is exorcised in such a manner that a feeling of coercion exists in the SOCial relationships of Mericans, then democratic authority, WhiCh 13 has“ 0n the willing and voluntary acceptance and approval of leadership. is usually replaced by control. In such situations outward approval is often SiVen because of fear, or a perception of self-interest; pSyChO‘ logical accfiptance is not given, which is the primary condition for the delegatim‘ of democratic authority. It is evident that in a 5°°iety uh 'cal ere belief: if not practice, in democracy is a PMt 0f the PsyChOlogl systems of most people, the character of the authority relationShlps 3h. that occur have important implications for all phases of human behavior. This is especially true as regards superior-subordinate relationships, and the effective Operation of democratic society. Not only does democratic authority involve voluntary approval of the majority, it must include "accountability" of the leadership to the peOple. Accountability means that the majority of peOple have the facts on which to judge the stewardship of their leaders, and since unfaithful leaders may be replaced, accountability is an effective means of in- fluence upon the actions of leadership. Devices of accountability inelude freedom 01‘ the press, periodic reports, auditing or activities by impartial citizens, freedom to organize loyal Opposition, freedom from coercion during elections, frequent elections, short terms of office, initiative, recall, and referendum, federation and devolution, Separation of authority by a system of checks and balances, and W W of individual civil and human rights. The men of power of Regional City were accountable to no one for their aetions except to the ruling oligarchy. The authority exerCised in an authoritarian society involves no accountability except to the War; Oligarchy who delegated it. Democratic authority, then, involves voluntary approval and psychological acceptance of leadership, ProvisiOn 0f the means to exercise the authority delegated, and the ace . . . . ountablhty of the leadership to those who delegated their authority. In t , . he case Of democratic authority, power and control reSlde in the People, influenced and is exercised by the majority, which. in “19°”, is 35. by the minority. In an authoritarian culture, authority, power, and control usually rests with one individual or an oligarchy of the few, and is usually exercised by their subordinates for them and under their direction. The Authority Of Formal and Informal Roles Miller has defined the "capacity of authority (as) that body of rights and privileges belonging to certain roles within the community."21 In every society all roles are endowed with a certain amount of authority, that is to say, whether the role be one of father, daughter, chairman, chief, shaman, or premier, each role is defined in the culture and society with approved norms of behavior. The individual who is occupy- ing a certain role has the authority of his society to behave in accord- ance with the norms of his role, and his behavior, if within those norms, Iill not be questioned. For example, the role of father in American culture and society includes the right to discipline his children. But beating his children is not culturally defined as normal or desirable behavior for a father. If he does beat his children, society, in the form of its institutions represented by the police and courts, and using the law which rests on the customs of the society, Will disoipline the father for overstepping the authority of his role. And if the father Continues to beat his children, he May be deprived of his active role as father, either by placing him in prison, or by removing the children from his custody. R01es may be informal, or formally constituted in an office with 36. formally prescribed rights, duties, and privileges. The important thing to remember about the authority which attaches to roles is that whether it be formal or informal, the culture prescribes rights, duties, and privileges for every role, and thus the authority for action within the role comes from the culture. The only difference between informal and formal roles, in effect, is that in the former case the rights, duties, and privileges are understood by members of society, whereas in the formal role they are formally definedJ often in a constitution and by-laws. It is important to remember also that normal behavior, the authority accompanying every role, is enforced by sanctions and deprivations of society. In American society, whether authority is informal, or formally constituted in an office depends upon function, the task which society desires be performed. For example, there are certain tasks which we may call "daily ongoing" or "permanent" functions. County and city government, such as the offices of Water and Light Commissioner, County Clerk, etc., are examples of this nature. The services provided by these offices are needed in the daily lives of the people. Since the people are busy with their own tasks, and do not have time to constantly supervise such offices, they formally con- stitute authority into such an office, choose a person to fill the role, and reward him for servicing their needs. Control and accountability is built into the office by periodic elections, and by audit and review of activities by approved leaders of the community, or by SPGCiEJ-ists chosen by the leaders to accomplish such a task. 37. On the other hand, there are community tasks which are short term in character. Such tasks, for example, may be organizing a 4-H club, or holding a carnival to raise money for playground equipment, or other similar tasks that are accomplished in a short time. While committees for such activities may or may not be formally organized, their actions are usually quite informal, and such organization as exists is dissolved as soon as the task is accomplished. In either case, regardless of whether authority is formal or informal, the impor- tant point is that objectives are accomplished, decisions are made and executed, the needs of peOple satisfied. If the function is accomplished the same amount of authority is constituted in both the formal and informal situation, that is to say, enough to accomplish the task. Whether formal or informal authority is chosen depends upon the nature of the function to be performed, and the judgment of the leadership as to which is preferrable. In American culture and society there is also the authority which is constituted in the social institution. For example, the family has the authority, that is to say, the approval of society, to reproduce and rear children, the public schools to provide for their formal education, the church to provide for their religious leadership. Like the roles which are filled by individuals, institutional roles have rights. duties, and privileges prescribed by the culture which determines their normal behavior, and which is also enforced by sanctions and deprivations, rWands and punishments . v w ...__..__.‘ 580 We find that both formal and informal groups, such as the Chamber of Commerce, or a clique of middle class wives who play bridge together once a week, have certain amounts of authority accorded to them. Here again the culture defines the amount and kind of authority each group shall have. The Chamber of Commerce, for example, has the authority to indulge in a wide variety of business, civic, and community activities; the women's bridge clique will find their authority largely confined to the social activities of its members. The Authority Of The Person While there is authority which attaches to an individual role, there are some personal roles which give wide latitude for interpreta- tion, so that some authority is related t0, and retained by, the individual himself. The normal individual, of course, alwa)’S has authority over those functions which adhere to the person, such as thinking, speaking, eating, and so on. But in addition to these normal bOdy functions there are certain competencies and aspects of the person which may help an individual who possesses them to win authority, or approval of leadership. Miller lists such personal resources as respect, My, success, obligations, subjeCt’matter competence, organizationil Skills, £13 skill with sym‘nols.‘22 Family position and wealth are Personal resources which may also help the individual to win authority. Mitre: Ultimate Source of Authority It is the culture which is the ultimate source of all authority. 39. We have already stated that it is the culture which defines the authority which attaches to individual roles, to social institutions and groups. If authority resides in the people as agents of its expression, then it is their customs and ideology, or culture, which directs their behavior in authority relationships. It is in the field of law that the power and authority of culture is best demonstrated. "Custom," says Cairns, "is the rule of conduct, one of the means of "is both a part and a product of social control. Law," he continues: social heredity. Social heredity, or culture, is the core of any The authority of the 23 general theory of society and hence of law. community is canalized within patterns of a legal kind..." The law which rests most perfectly upon the culture and customs 1 need little enforcement. The Common Law rests on the customs of the peOple. Of the peOple wil almost entirely, at least in its origin, Westermarck, Hobhouse, and Sumner have worked out the stages in which culminates in the statutes of the formation of societary control law. These stages are summarized by Eubank as follows: 1. An emotion of approval or disapproval in a particular case. 2. A judgment of approval or disapproval constituting a generalization “5 t0 the desirability of cases of this type. -institutionalized embodi- 30 FOlkvays, mores, and usages, informal non ments of previously formed judgments of approval 01‘ disapproval, but ying to all cases of Eenerally understood and commonly accepted as appl this general class. ,K.‘ — — #0. h. Accepted institutions, culminating in law, the formal crystalization of the previously formed judgments of approval or disapproval, into express statutes, with definite penalties for violation. These stages represent a general trend of develOpment and do not necessarily occur in the same way in each case. According to James Truslow Adams, the spirit of lawlessness and is deep in American culture.25 But as we disrespect for law as such, shall show in a later chapter, what often appears as lawlessness is f democratic authority really an exertion of the cultural pattern 0 which is common to the majority of Americans. Most Americans do not y law or regulation which was formulated with- feel obligated to obey an out their participation or direct representation, or which violates selfish interests. One of the reasons colonists disobeyed the laws. of was because they had no representation in the British the British Crown Parliament; frontiersmen in the West disobeyed the laws of the Federal control of a group different from their own; Government when it was in P9°Ple in the South today circumvent the Supreme Court decision on de- segregation in the schools. In this light it is imperative that laws e of the peOple and effectively represent the be based on the cultur tOtal citizenry if they are to be effective as a means of social control and Part of the authority structure. American history and experience n direct conflict with the is filled with examples of laws that were i culture, Three such examples are the edicts of George III which were the Fugitive Slave Law circumvented and defied in every way possible, °f the Civil War period, and the Volstead Act. ’+l. One of our best examPles of the authority of culture is found in the British experience in Burma.26 When the British administrators case to Burma they found among the Burmese no army, no regular police, and allost no prisons. The only visible authority structure was that of a king who had certain customary powers which were respected, and the authority of hereditary chieftans in relation to a "circle" of peeple who lived in adjoining villages. These chieftans governed peeple, not a district. The groups of villages were thought of as having always belonged together and their chief as having been born to them. Their laws also belonged to them and were part of village life and structure; they were followed as inherent to a way 0f life. A man acted with what amounted to honesty and uprightness because that was the "I to set, rather than out of social responsibility, or out of concern for others. The chieftan guided and arbitrated, he did not coerce. He had no policemen because they were not needed; crime was almost non-existant because the accepted behavior, customs, were a part of the psychological systems of the people. Normal behavior was “Wptable behavior. In other words, peoples law, 0113130111, and culture were a unity; the law was in the 13801318 and they were immersed in it. The British, as representatives of western culture, found the Burmese system "confusing, inefficient. and irrational-" They soon replaced the authority structure of the "circle", based on human relation- shipts between specific people, with a district, an administrative unit based on Space. For Burmese custom, the rule of law was substituted, 1+2. which included the British form of trial by jury. Soon after the headmen had been transformed into salaried officials, it was found necessary to form a village police force. Shortly after, the courts, established along Western lines, were filled with cases. Crime rose rapidly, and corruption among officials was rampant, when interpreted by Western standards . Let us see if we can determine why these people, among which crime was almost unknown, experienced a rapid rise in crime after the British system was instituted. First of all, when the organic unity of the village was shattered, when external control with penal sanctions was substituted for the authority inherent in a traditional way 0f life, the traditional guiding principle of social conduct was destroyed and there was nothing to take its place. Moreover, there was no funda- mental ethical commitment to British law, based on customs entirely : I o '2. . s I ' . . ‘ ”le t0 the Burmese. While even more indiVidualistic in terms of Personal autonOmy than the British, the Burmese culture had as its main not' . , . Natl”, n0t success in material terms, but a personal 1ncrease 1n merit throughout life, achieved through giving to others and by Seed d . eeds, 8° that the individual would be reincarnated at a higher stage 0 fdeV°1°Pmento All males lived in the village monasterbt at leaSt for a snort time. The monks gave them, through theory and example, education 1 n . . n how to live." These things, plus the regular religious ceremonieS, e . . I re all built into the main cultural motivation of reincarnation. The ‘ilture , . . of value was built around religion, and material things were 0n1~ . . -c J for subSiStence. This is in contrast to the secular, materialist; , #3. British culture, which the Burmese could not understand nor see any reason to obey. The key to the authority of a culture is its intimate relation- ship to the psychological system of the individual, its basis in ongoing daily human relationships, surrounded and reinforced by ethical considerations and moral obligations between 13601316. What happened in Burma when the British Mposed their rational, impersonal system of law, is, in many reSpects, what has happened in the United States as the primary relationships and customs of a rural society have been replaced in urban society by the control of positive law based on penal sanctions. Such methods of societary control are seldom undergirded by any personal, moral sanctions or obligations. §ggial Power And Authority It is desirable that we define the term "social power" in relation to authority. Hunter defines power as "the ability of persons to move goods and services toward defined goals."27 Bierstedt States that social power comes from three sources, "(1) numbers of pe0ple (2) SOCial organi- Zation and (3) resources."28 Both of these statements require elabora- tion to be meaningful and inclusive. First let us distinguish "social" power. The term "social" as related to power refers to those aSpects 01" power which are present in any social relationship between individuals 02‘ groups of human beings. "Social" power is thus distinguished from ather types of power such as electrical or mechanical power. The reSOuz-ceg which individuals or groups of individuals carry with them 44. into any social situation is the key to the behavior of the people involved in a Specific social relationship. Such resources we have already listed as relevant to the authority of the person, resources which enable the person to gain from others approval of leadership. Such resources as wealth, family position, respect, morality, posi- tion in the business structure, success, access to important individuals or groups, mutual obligations, time for action, subject-matter competence, skills with symbols, organizational skills, holding an important office, or being a legendary personality of favor, are all resources which may be held in varying degrees by individuals or groups. These resources may he referred to as "assets of social power", assets which may be used in a variety of ways in the field of social relationships. Such assets may be used as a means of "dominance and control" of community affairs, the way the men of power used such assets in Regional City, described in the study by Hunter.29 SUCh assets, 01‘ the ingredients of social power, may also be used to win democratic authority, that is to say, the majority approval of leadership exercised by persons who have social power. Social power may also be used as the basis for in- financing decisions in the social structure. For example, the views of a man of wealth, a possible heavy contributor, may influence the actions of a committee deliberating on a hOSpital for the community. Or as is frequently the case, social power may not be used at all. The fact that social po'er is not used, however, does not deprive it of influence in Certain social situations. For example, the wise political candidate always takes steps to win or neutralize all sources of social power, 45. He never knows when unused social power, under the influence of a rival candidate, may become active against him. In such cases, the mere fact that social power exists, regardless of whether it is being used or not, influences the behavior of the political candidate. It is evident that social power may at times reside in sheer numbers of peoPle, as for example, in elections where a majority "has the power" to win the right to "delegate authority." Such a majority, however, may not be organized so that all of its members vote. In such cases an "or anized" minority may win the election. If such be the case, social power resides in "social organization", rather than in the sheer numbers of an unorganized majority. Hunter's definition of social power as relating to "goods and services" is much too linited. Social power is a component of every social relationship between human beings, and as such may be psycho- logical, social, or economic in character. For example, a youth who decides to go to college, may find his major motivation and influence in such a decision in the fact that his uncle, whom he adores, has been very successful and lays his success to his college education. The unele may never have Spoken a word to his nephew about entering college, Yet he is the major influence in his nephew's decision. In this case social power has nothing to do with goods and services, except perhaps indirectly in the materialistic American success pattern. We should note also that with the exception of "wealth" and "Office holding", the resources of social power are 5° much a part Of the personality that they are non-transferable. Thus, with the exception 46. of "wealth" and "office", social power cannot be delegated or trans- ferred to other individuals. This is not the case with groups, however, where a change in group membership may be accompanied with a change in social power. The social power of a group is merely the collective social assets of its members, and when the membership changes, the character of the social power of the group is bound to change with it. Finally, we may define social power "as that component which is present in every social situation, which is embodied in the social assets of the individual, and may or may not be used to win democratic authority, influence decisions or other behavior, or win and maintain dominance and control. In the group situation social power may also reside in numbers of pe0ple and in social organization, in addition to the social assets of the collective membership." liar.“ or The Social Situation of considerable Operational value is the concept of "the law of the social situation."’ The essence of the law of the social situation is that each specific social situation determines the amount, kind, and quality of the social power which each participant brings to the social relationship, and thus the amount of authority each is able to win, the influence each is able to exercise, or the amount of dominance and M . This concept has been adapted from the original idea by Mary Parker FOIlet, as eXplained in her collected papers, "Dynamic Administration", edited by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick, New York: Harper and Bros., 1940’ PP. 53-64. 1+7. control each may be able to gain. It must be evident that human beings and their social assets are constantly changing, that some are gaining and some are losing social power. Moreover, the motivations, pre- diSpositions, and inclinations of persons are never exactly the same from one social situation to the next, even when the relationship is between the same two people. Certainly, as the participants in the specific social relationship change, the law of the social situation would be fully Operative. Now that we have defined democratic authority as related to various sociocultural patterns, let us turn to the primary conditions which the citizen must have to exercise his authority, the conditions or" freedom, independence and self-reliance. In addition to trying to determine the extent of the existence of these cultural patterns in the Protestant segments of culture in the United States, we must try also to determine their cultural character. To do the latter we must trace their cultural develOpment from the beginning of the Protestant Reformation. l+8. NOTES 1. Linton, Ralph, The Study Of Man, New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts, Inc., 1936, p. 78. 2. Malinowski, Bronislaw, "Culture", EncyclOpedia of the Social Sciences, Vol. III, New York: The MacMillan Co., MCI‘IXXXVII, p. 21. 3. Davis, Allison, "Light From Anthr0p010gy On Intercultural Relations", Cultural Groups And Human Relations, Conferénce On Educational Problems of Special Cultural Groups, Columbia University, Teachers College, New York: Columbia Universthy Press! 19519 P0 77. 1+. Herskovits, Melville J., Man And His Works, New York: Alfred A- Kn0pf. 1948, pp. 17 and 625. 5° “15316318. Roberto, "Authority". EncyclOPedia 01' the SOC-“1‘9 M. Vols. I-II, New York: The MacMillan Co., mcmnxvn, pp. 319 - 32].. 6' Plead, Margaret, And Keep Your Powder Dgy, New York: William torrow and Co., 1942, pp. 55 and 109. 7' Davin, Allison, "Socialization and Adolescent Personality": Mk Social Psychology, Editors, Theodore M. Newcomb ”dlfiugene L. Hartley, New York: Henry Holt and Co., 191*7' Po 7. 8 Bier - ' Btedt, Robert, "An Analysis of Social Power", American W1 Review, Vol. XV, December, 1950’ P130 733 " 73i’ 9. Sumter, FlOyd, C_0mmunity Power Structure, Chapel Hill, Nozth 155011.191“ University of North Carolina Press, 1953, PP- 2 t 79’ 3 So 10. - M" p. 81 H PP. 30.31.58.102,103,112,160,183.l . 12. 13. $212??? Samuel An and Others, The American Soldjier, Vols. 1949 ’ Princeton: New Jersey: Princeton University Press, Barnard, Chester I" The Functions of the Executive, Cambridge, assachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1954, p. 163. l8. 19. 20. 2L 2& 230 24. 2i 2d 27. 29. 49. Ibid., p. 168. Ibido ’ pp. 170-171 0 Ibid., p. 167. 8 . -3 York- Lea er . rs Palll, M .lI; 3., 19359 pp. 203-2810 I 9 . ’ Ibid., p. 166. 11, The C. Rothwe ......- ston over D Daniel Lerner, a§g 3:, Series BfiAiEerity Laswell, Harold uf Elites, Elltss nia: Stanford Comparative StlnldlY opalo Alto, Call-for Institute Studies, Press, 1953, Po 8- ' ' Michigan ng. ' East Lan51 C unity Health Action, m Miller Paul A., om . 15. State College Press, 1953, p “£213! P0 18. Hill: . Chapel 6 1 SClencec O 4 a ~ The Theory Of Leg: 1941, PP' 20’ 3 ’ Cairns, Huntlngtcfianorth Carolina Pres a The University 0 6 . D. C. Boston. ciology, Ed d The Concepts of So EUbank, Earle war , 1+ 0 Heath and Co., 1932, p. 2 9 Adams, k: ' New Yor ' ’ ' ation, Our Business Civ111z James Truslow, Albert 109. 01 108, d Charles Boni, 1929, pp. 1 a an New . a1 Charms-'5: d TeChnlC. he ) Cultural Patterns in 23-34' Elve: t o r . lkad,lmrgaret (edican Library, i9553prurmese cultu York: The NEW Ame: whole discuss:Lon foundation or on Hunter, 0 ‘ty ' ° Univer51 e1 Hill. Power Structure, Chap .ty Floyd, Communi °f NOrth . 81. Carolina Press, 1953’ P ‘can " The Ameri ' 1 Power g B. t dt Robert "An Analysis of Socha 181‘s e ’ ’ So 737 1950, P- I‘ ' 1 ' 1 Review, Vol. xv, Decembe , Clo 0 lea Hunter, . ’ty ' ° UniverSi e1 H111. P wer Structure, Chap ty 0 Fl°yd. Communi 0f 81. o 2L}! 75’ North Carolina Press, 1953, PP SECTION II FREEDOM, INDEPENDENCE, SELF—RELIANCE, AND AUTHORITY The citizen must be free, independent, and self-reliant to exercise his democratic authority effectively. In this section we have attempted, in brief, to trace the cultural development of freedom, independence, self-reliance, and democratic citizen authority from their ideolOgical seeds in the Protestant Reformation to their present status in American culture and society at mid-twentieth century. Our documentation shows that in the United States there was a steady rise together of all four culture complexes until about the mid- nineteenth century. At this point in our history the beginning concen- tration of wealth and power, and the resultant growth of urban-industrial culture and society, meant also the beginning of the decline of freedom, independence, and self-reliance. In the city, Specialization and dependence replaced the self—sufficiency and independence of rural society. And as men of wealth gained control of the national economy, the economic independence which is the foundation of freedom in a capitalistic society, was lost to the majority of citizens. In urban Society the individual has drOpped into insignificance, and the area in which he is competent to exercise his authority is a narrow one con- fined to his person, family, and job functions. In sum, while constitutional law has continuously widened the legal sanctions undergirding individual freedoms outside economic affairs, the ! Bureaucratic character of urban-industrial culture under the dominance of 51. a few business leaders has served to effectively nullify these legal gains. The citizen's exercise of authority has, as a result, been steadily restricted in scepe. Margaret Mead has said that the way Americans behave today rests upon the experiences of the generations of men and women that have lived before contemporary times. In an attempt to gain some insight and understanding of how Americans behave in authority relations, we have tried to bring together information on the deve10ping character of the Protestant American, and the cultural patterns and social institutions which flow from his cultural character. Beyond that we have touched upon some contradictions and conflicts in American Protestant culture, and its developing character of authority. Under Protestantism the personality of man underwent great change. then the individual was made responsible for his own salvation and was told there was no one between him and God, the stage was set for man's transformation. He deveIOped from passive acceptance of his lot to intense activity on his own behalf; from being his brother's keeper to keeper of himself. He became spiritually independent, alone, non- conformist, and could accept no mortal master but himself. He must have freedom to pursue selfish interests. And his self-reliance was a natural develOpment of the pursuit of self-interest in an atomistic society. Two and a half centuries of frontier experience on a rich, virgin continent drove deeper into American culture the individualistic and Selfish characteristics of Protestant man. Those patterns of Protestant 52. culture which were not compatible with a frontier environment were modified to suit it. For example, frontier equalitarianism was not compatible with the Calvinistic doctrine of predestination and election. In a capitalistic society, the churches employing this doctrine had two choices: they could survive and grow by changing their doctrine to conform to frontier culture, or they could refuse to change and suffer institutional death. They changed toward conformity to the controlling culture. In a frontier society man formed the habit of acting alone as a free individual, and his rebellion was quick when someone tried to tell him what to do. The develOpment of education, reason, inquiry, self-government, religious freedom and other basic liberties were the means for the individual to realize self-interests. Almost all areas of American Culture reinforce individual accomplishment and self-interest. The capture of Protestantism by secular leaders, coupled with its basic foundation of protest, has resulted in great contradictions and conflicts in American culture and societ)“ The nature of "Calvinistic man", develOped in protest to the moral laxity of medieval Catholic leaders, denied the very humanity of the SOCial animal called man. The Calvinistic Protestant must deny every- thing human: his emotionS, his association with family and friends, the fatigue of his body if he needed to keep working---anything which might POssibly come between him and God the Calvinist must deny. In modern American culture these humanity-denying patterns are the same---the 8°al has merely been changed from "salvation" to "success". These 53. cultural patterns are in direct conflict with the essential bio-social character of man, which dictates that man must have love and social relations as the basis for good health. When secular leaders captured Protestantism they made the pursuit of self-interest a virtue. This basic motivation is expected, accepted, and rewarded in American culture tOday. Christianity is also a part of American culture. And Christ taught absolute unselfishness. Insofar as the teachings of Christ do have influence upon Americans they are in conflict with the dominant cultural motivation of self— interest. The negative character of the freedom which undergirds self-interest is in conflict with the total welfare of society. Freedom and equality are in conflict with each other, a fact which became rapidly evident shortly after the Civil War as business leaders gained societal control. There are other cultural contradictions-~these are the major ones in- fluencing the character of American authority. Out of this develoPing experience has come also the basic character of American authority. Inherent in Protestantism is the antipathy in the American character to all forms of "control". This was true during the Colonial Period, the American Revolutionary period, during the Settlement of the frontier; it is true today in relation to "figures 0f control" such as the teacher or policeman. In contrast 13° control, the American people have always accepted "authority" created by them- selves through direct choice of their own leaders. To restrain the POIer of the individual, and to control authority which is delegated to leaders, the American peeple devised the multiple authority structure 540 such as the committee. They divided and limited authority whenever hey could, instituted checks and balances, proclaimed and enforced through elections the right to instruct their representatives. The purpose of these devices was to enable the ordinary citizen to retain control of authority. Wherever possible, schools, churches, city and county government were kept under local citizen control. As established in American culture, therefore, authority rested in the hands of the individual citizen. The motive behind the desires for self-government, through which individual authority was expressed, was the pursuit of self-interest most often manifest in material terms. The character of American "democratic" authority is unique and different from the EurOpean heritage of its people. A clear and definite break with Old World concepts of authoritarian authority came with the winning of the’Revolutionary War. Democratic concepts of authority were implemented by an authority structure, headed by the Federal Con- stitution, which is uniquely American. Authority relations were further democratized by some twenty-five decades of frontier living. It is the ideology and form of authority held by the majority which has been democratic; practice may have been another matter. At the same time, also, authoritarian concepts and practice of authority have always been present in American societyo Indeed, the mejor struggles within the society have been and continue to be, authority struggles. The Federalists under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton would have no part of authority resting in the hands of that 55- "great beast", the peOple. The Civil War was a struggle over authOrity. Northern democracy wanted to extend authority, and a southern aristo- cracy wished to retain its control. Business dominance of society was and is authoritarian in character, and ordinary citizens have been in a constant struggle to gain some freedom and independence from this dominance. Today we see the same struggle of "control" versus "authority" in the desegregation issue. Thus it was that American culture and the character of American authority Ias established out of a Calvinistic, Protestant heritage modified by two and a half centuries of frontier experience. This basic cultural character was well formed by 1850, and was fully established by 1900. This is the scene at mid—twentieth century: the basic culture and its ideology and form of authority relations, which develOped under frontier conditions prior to 1900, are being perpetuated by the culture transmitting institutions which are in control of a few business leaders; leaders who desire frontier freedoms and individual authority and/or control for themselves. This individualistic ideology of authority is in direct conflict with an urban environment which demands cooperative, teen-playing, inter-dependent action by the individual as a part of a Eroup effort. The new century has also brought millions of Catholic immigrants from Eur-ape to settle in American cities as the labor force for a grow- inS industry. Their ideology of authority is also in conflict with the S6. ideology of authority established in American culture under early and continuing Protestant dominance . These basic sociocultural conflicts are indeed serious. They are reflected within the personality of the individual citizen, and influence his behavior in authority relations. CHAPTER III - IDEOLOGICAL SEEDS Freedom, independence, and self~reliance are important conditions necessary for the individual to exercise his authority as a citizen in a democratic society. Freedom is a state of society, a cultural pattern, and a state of being and feeling insofar as the individual is concerned. The negative aspect of freedom in relation to authority, is a feeling of "freedom from coercion" in the exercise of authority. The positive aspect of freedom, in this relationship, is culturally bound. This aspect of freedom is not only the actual condition of freedom, but the attitude, or lack of it, in the culture and in the individual, which directs him to use his freedom in the exercise of his authority in all areas in which he is competent. Many Americans, for example, are free to vote in elections, but do not use this freedom to exercise their authority. The other important sociocultural aSpect of freedom in relation to authority, is how many peOple actually are free, legally and culturally, to exercise civil authority as normal Citizens of a democratic societb’o Moreover, man cannot exercise his authority freely in a capitalistic society unless he is economically independent, and unless he is self- reliant enough to take such action as is needed to exercise it. One of our first tasks, therefore, is to try to gain perspective, intights, and understanding into contemporary sociocultural patterns of freedom, independence, and self-reliance in the United States. We are not attempting here to write a history of American authority In relatioz: to freedom, self-reliance, and independence. We have chosen 58. those historical events which we feel are most important in the shaping of American authority relationships, with the hOpe that an understanding of these events will help to clarify authority relationships as they are found in American society today. At the same time, however, we are fully c0gnizant that history is not a series of isolated events; rather, it is the ongoing daily experience of human beings. Nevertheless, while being fully aware of the importance and interconnectedness of all history, we are forced to choose those events we feel are most important to serve Our purpose, and leave the others untouched. Let us begin by briefly discussing Martin Luther's contribution to the ideology of authority. MARTIN LUTHER AND INDIVIDUAL AUTHORITY Salvation By Faith Alone - Breach In The Ideology Of Authority. When that young monk and Doctor of Theology, Martin Luther, posted his ninety-five theses on the door of Castle Church in Wittenberg in 151?, he set in motion a train of events that have led to contemporary, democratic authority relationships in American culture and society. Out of this one act by a German dissenter from the Roman Catholic Church. have Sprung the ideological seeds of democratic authority that have come to full fruition in the free soil 0f the New World. After several years of terrible conflicts in his own soul, Luther W1 found his own salvation and peace through the StUdY of the Scripture. In the atmosphere of fear then prevalent in the Catholic Church, God had 59. always been portrayed to him as a majestic and wrathful God; now through the cross of Christ, he had become a God of love and mercy. Out of this experience Luther had come to believe that all man needed for salvation was faith that through Christ he would be saved. These were beliefs, in Luther's day, of rank heresy. For the POpe, at that time, claimed to be both the temporal and spiritual sovereign This claim rested on another: that the POpe was the The of all persons. successor of St. Peter and the representative of Christ on earth. mediation of the priest, as the representative of the Pope, was thus believed to be necessary to all peeple as the means to salvation. It was also this religious sanction which made the POpe, in the eyes of most people, far superior to all secular authority. To assert, as Luther did, that all that was needed for salvation was faith on the part of the individual himself, was to eliminate com- pletely the need for the mediation of the priest as the way to salvation, and at the same time undercut the POpe's claim to supreme authority on earth. But Luther's initial clash with the Roman Church was over another matter, that of indulgences. Some two centuries before Luther's time, Pope John XXII had systematically made the di8pensation of grace, teYEPOI‘c'il and eternal, a matter of revenue. For a sum SpeCified by the priesthood, a person could purchase an indulgence in exchange for re- mission of sins. Indulgences were so successful financially that the Church had, by Luther's time, begun to use them as a major means to finance Church activities . 60. It was the authority of the POpe to grant indulgences, and through then remission of sins, against which Luther spoke out in his ninety- five theses calling his colleagues to debate the matter. Luther made the mistake of sending a c0py of his theses to Albert of Mainz, who himself was using indulgences to advance his own station and power within the Church. Albert sent the COpy to Rome, and from that day forward deveIOped the battle between Luther and the Roman Church which culminated in the Protestant Reformation and the freedom of western man from the authority of the church. Ether Plants The Seeds of Freedom and Independence About a year after Luther had nailed his ninety—five theses to the door of Castle Church, he was called before Cardinal Cajetan to recant. When he was asked to recant, Luther demanded to be instructed in his error, and said, "I am not so audacious that for the sake of a single obscure and ambiguous decretal of a human POpe I would recede from so many and such clear testimonies of divine Scripture." The Cardinal then said that Scripture must be interpreted, that the Pepe is the interpreter, and that the POpe is above Scripture and everything else in the Church. "His Holiness abuses Scripture," retorted Luther, I deny that he is above Scripture."2 Later, in a written reply to Cardinal Cajetan, Luther said, "I deny that you cannot be a Christian without being subject to the decrees of the ROman Pontiff."3 Here we see the authority of Scripture being substituted for the 61. authority of a human Pepe to grant salvation to the members of the church. It is doubtful that Luther could see even the immediate impli- cations and consequences that were soon to flow from this original breach in the ideology of authority in the western culture. In July, 1519, a year later, in a debate with John Eck at Leipsig, Luther had clarified his position still more: "I want to believe freely and be a slave to the authority of no one, whether council, university or POpe."if But it was before the Diet of Worms in 1521 that Luther enunciated the full kernel of the creed that eventually loosed the bonds of western man. The scene was Luther standing before the Emperer Charles and a Plenary Session of the Diet, a hearing before the German nation, in fact. Luther was asked to repudiate his writings and utterances against the Pepe and Church. He had given a qualified refusal, and when asked to simply state whether he did or did not repudiate and recent, he replied, "... Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason-«J do not accept the authority of pepes and councils, for they have contradicted each other~--my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and I will not meant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand, I cannot do otherwise. God help me. Amen."5 In this outward defiance of the authority of Pepe, Church, and Cvuncil, the amazing Luther exerted the authority of free men to think, t0 believe, and to act in accordance with their own conscience. Their Only authority was to be Scripture: and that interpreted by the individual himself: instead of a Pepe. 62. The Seeds Of Individualism And Equality But perhaps most important insofar as authority relations are concerned, is the beginning psycholegy of individualism. When Luther said, "here I stand", the implied emphasis was on the "I". There was no one between him and God. Not the Pope: 01‘ P1135132 or church, bUt man ~~- was in charge of his own salvation --- salvation by faith alone. Luther explained it this way: "...the sacrament depends for its efficacy upon the faith of the recipient. That must of necessity make it highly individual because faith is individual. Every soul...stands in naked confrontation before its maker...no man can die fer another, no man can believe for another, no man can answer for another..." While the extent of Luther's individualism was only that every man must answer for himself to God, the consequences of freedom, individual aetion, and the use of reason naturally led beyond his mortal vision. Most important, as far as reform was concerned, was the implementa- tion of Luther's ideas in the lives of the common people. What affected then most, because it altered their daily devotions, was reform of the liturgy. The laity was now allowed to take the bread into their own hands and drink wine at the sacrament, where previously only the priest was allowed to do these things. They were also allowed to participate extensively in singing sacred hymns, could take communion without confession. Part of the mass was said in the native German, and priests discarded the vestments, wearing plain clothes at the alter. Priests, ”MS. and nuns married. Vigils ceased and masses for the dead were 63. discontinued. Images were smashed, and meat eaten on fast days. Not only had salvation become individual, but these reforms planted the seeds of equality, the basis for new and different authority relations. Moreover, with the first city ordinance of the Reformation, at Wittenberg, the foundation of "local authority" was laid. This ordin- ance confirmed reforms already instituted in Castle Church by Carlstadt, Luther‘s colleague. Luther's ideas on social reform were also imple- mented: "Begging was forbidden, prostitutes banned, images removed from the churches, and the genuinely poor maintained from a common fund."7 Faith alone could bring salvation, but men only partially free had already begun to improve the material aSpects of their society so the Spirit. they thought, could the better flourish. Eiseeds 0f Materialism Out of Luther's ideolOgy we see also the first seeds of materialism, so important in the authority relations of western civilization. Luther's theory of the mass was "that the mass is not a sacrifice but a thanks— giving to God and a communion with believers. It is not a sacrifice in the sense of placating God, because he does not need to be placated, and it is not an oblation in the sense of something offered, because man Cannot offer to God but only receive.”8 Where previously much of man's time was occupied with keeping himself in the good graces of a wrathful, fearful GOd, SO that he might hepe t0 Mer heaven instead of burn forever in a terrible hell, now he must only 64. have faith and love God. outwardly, there is little he can do or need do for his salvation. Not only is he armed with individual freedom and reason, but he has more time to pursue the material things, to be occupied with the "self" in matters other than salvation. Even Luther, it is said, began to worry lest "the glorious liberty of the sons of God was in danger of becoming a matter of clothes, diet, and haircuts."9 But it remained for John Calvin, Luther's successor as Reformation leader to organize a Protestant theology which resulted in the economic and materialistic virtues being made a duty to glorify God. flhority Transferred From Church To Secular State "Luther's reVOlt against authority was an attack, not on its rigor, but on its laxity and its corruption."lo But the 10810 of his reforms, in giving the individual rather than the Church, the responsibility for salvation, led rather to further lessening of authority over man by his social institutions. This consequence soon became evident in the tragic Peasant's War, with its touching appeal to the Gospel, stimulated by Luther's previous work. The peasants demanded that villeinage should end, because "Christ has delivered and redeemed us all, the lowly as well as the great, without exception, by the shedding of his precious blood."n But Luther would have none of it. Said Luther, "This article Iould make all men equal and 80 change the spiritual kingdom Of Christ into an external worldly one. Impossible! An earthly kingdom cannot exist without inequality of persons. Some must be free, others serfs, 65. some rulers, others subjects. As St. Paul says, 'Before Christ both master and slave are one.’ "12 After Luther had written "The Freedom of the Christian Man," it and its author had been severely criticized beCause it "would prompt the masses to reject all authority."13 Luther had been severely criticized time and time again by the Roman Church because it said, "his teaching makes for rebellion, divi- sion, var, murder, arson, and the collapse of Christendom."14 He saw in the Peasant's War the confirmation of this criticism, and since he viewed the Reformation as spiritual, that is to say, internal rather than external in relation to man, he would not have the anarchy of the peasantry, concerned with a social revolution, impede the spiritual PTOgress of the human soul. It is highly significant, and portends of the future struggles to COM, that the idea that all men are on the same footing before God, and thus in this reSpect equal, had so soon produced a revolutiOn aimed at the realization of the same idea in the social structure. This idea is a seed which grows into full flowering of the adult plant only after many Subsequent revolutions. A150 0f great consequence as a result of Luther's religious premises is the divorcement of secular activities from previous spiritual re- Straints. In the words of Tawney, "it riveted on the social thought of Protestantism a dualism which, as its implications were develOped, emptied religion of its social content, and society of its soul."15 The human soul, according to Luther's teaching, is spoken to God, in the 66. heart alone. Man-made social institutions and a priesthood are not necessary, are irrelavent to salvation. The soul is thus isolated from human society that it may seek its relationship to God, which is paramount. "The medieval conception of the social order, which had regarded society as a highly articulated organism of members contri- buting to a spiritual purpose, in their different degrees, was shattered...Man's actions as a member of society were no longer the extension of his life as a child of God: they were its negation. Secular interests ceased to possess, even remotely, a religious signi- ficance; they might compete with religion, but they could not enrich it."16 Although certainly not intended by Luther, we see in this dualism 0f secular and religious spheres of life, the seeds of division between church and state, the beginning of secularism, both of which are to later prove so important in the authority relations of the United States. Since Luther would not have the Church wield authority over the secular affairs of man, and the anarchy of the peasants threatened to thwart the progress of the religious reformation, Luther had no place to turn but to the state. Peace and order he would enforce by the Prince's sword. "You see it is as I said," said Luther, "that Christians are rare peeple on earth. Therefore, stern hard civil rule is necessary in the world lest the world become wild, peace vanish, and commerce and “331011 interests be destroyed...No one need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall and must be red and blood)'-"17 67. Thus we see authority and the maintenance of Christian morality transferred from the altar of the Church to the throne of the civil state. In Germany in particular, and in much of Europe, the citizen was never to be free from this authoritarianism, which at this crucial juncture in history, was transferred from the Church to the State, and up until the military defeat of Nazism, had constantly become stronger in the society and culture of many nations. It was John Calvin, who, using many of the basic ideas prepounded by Luther, welded them into a way of life which was to revolutionize the society and culture for western EurOpe, Great Britain in particular, and culminate inthe democratic authority relationships of the American people. Let us turn now to a consideration of Calvin's ideolOgy and its consequences in authority relationships. JOHN CALVIN AND INDIVIDUAL AUTHORITY .IEEQrtance 0f Calvinism In American Culture And Society Most impOrtant in the foundation of American culture is the ideo- logy of Calvinism. It was the English followers of Calvin, the Puritans 0:“ Massachusetts Bay, and the Pilgrims of the PlymOUth COlOHY: who had so much to do with the shaping of American culture and society in colonial times.18 These hardy people, whose glorification of God was expressed in hard work and capitalistic enterprise soon spread in all directions across the American continent. Because of historical accident these peOple were first to become established on the American continent, and 68. because their ideology Spurred them ever to seek: their fortune and the glory of God, they were usually first to Open up new territory in the nest. Naturally, they carried their social institutions and culture with them wherever they went, so that the first beginnings and social institutions in many communities were based on Calvinist ideolOgy. By the time of the great migration from EurOpe in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the foundation of American culture had been laid, and it was the new immigrants who were forced to adjust to the American way of life. Furthermore, it was the religious sects which develOped from early Calvinism that have played so great a part in the development of the continent west of the Mississippi river. Chief among these were the I-Iet‘nodists and Baptists, whose circuit riding preachers followed the settlers west, and were active in establishing their religion early in the new communities. The Quakers and I'Iennonites, and the Congrega- tional and Presbyterian faiths, all Of Calvinist origin, have played a fiajOr role in American culture and society since the establishment Of Plymouth Colony. The victory of the industrial North in the Civil War also served to accelerate, in American culture and society, the consequences of the Calvinist ideolOgy which was and is so firmly embedded in the culture of that area. While the passage of human experience over four centuries has brouéflxt major changes and modifications in the Calvinist ideology, it is necessary to know something of the ideological seeds Of Calvinism in c n n \ e , ‘I - I K I ‘\ b. t ‘< A: v \ s \ A r e . .‘ , 69. order to gain a fuller understanding of its contemporary influence. In this perSpective let us turn to the develOpment of Calvin's ideology. We shall begin with his personality, experience, and ideological back- ground, since these are major influences in setting the direction of his theology. Calvin's Personality, Experience, And Ideological Background Calvin was indebted to other leaders of the Reformation for his major ideas. ESpecially did he owe a great debt to Luther and Martin Bucer. In its doctrinal outlook, the first edition of Calvin's "Insti- tutes" might well appear a product of the German Reformation, especially as the movement had deve10ped in the Rhine Valley.19 In fact, Calvin's whole theological work was made possible only by the antecedent labors 0f Luther.20 Calvin's mind was formulative rather than creative, and with the logic of his legal training, he was able to take the fundamental principles of the Reformation, and organize them into a consistent body 01‘ theology which was able to withstand the major efforts and criticisms of its Opponents. It was Calvin's ability to carry his theOIOgy into the daily living of the peOple through discipline and the organization of civil life, plus the education of the citizen in religious doctrine, that gave it the power that Lutheranism never develOped. In short, Calvinism became a way of life, rather than just a religious doctrine, which sought not merely to purify the individual, but to reconstruct 70. Church and State, and to renew society by penetrating every department of life, public as well as private, with the influence of religion.21 Not unlike the experience of Luther, Calvin's theolOgical develoP- ment was influenced at the outset by the experience of his conversion. Like Luther, he found that even though he performed the outward duties of a member of the Roman Catholic Church, he experienced periods of terror, and had no peace of mind. Since the culture of the established church was so deep within his psychological system, he resisted his first contacts with Protestant ideas. But through contacts with friends who were Protestant, through study of the Scriptures, and aided by the abuses of the Church, he was converted. Calvin regarded his conversion as the sovereign work of God. He felt that only the immediate and transforming intervention of God himself through his divine power could have wrought the change which he reCOg- nized as having taken place within him.2‘2 Nothing was between him and God, Calvin felt, and as God spoke through his divine laws enbodied in the Scripture, he could but listen and obey. He came to believe that he was ”called” by God to do his work, and as God's servant he felt he eXpounded the very words of God.23 He had found relief from his burden of sinful feeling, and it is under- scandable why his beliefs concerning this experience were 5° deep in his PS‘JcholOgical system. As the foundation upon which his ideas of authority are based, and as the ideolOgy which transformed "humble sinners" into "selfish, self- 710 governing, self-confident saints," let us describe briefly the major tenets of Calvin's theology. The PowerLAuthority, Divine Justice, And Omnipotence Of God Calvin's theology was centered around the idea of the power, authority, divine justice, and omnipotence of God. Since God created each one of us, he explained, we owe our lives to him, and belong to him, are subject to his authority. Because of these facts, said Calvin, our knowledge of God should teach us to fear and reverence him, "to im- plore all good at his hand, and to tender him the praise of all that we receive."2L} "God asserts his possession of omnipotence governs heaven and earth by his providence and regulates all things ..."25 If not even a Sparrow falls to the ground without God's knowledge and will, then certainly nothing happens without his will and counsel. "The will of God is the highest rule of justice, so that what he “ills must be considered just, for this very reason, because he wills it." said Calvin. The smallness of the human mind, Calvin believed, Prevents man from comprehending divine justice. Moreover, divine justice is too high to be measured by human standards, and for these reasons it would be highly presumptious for man to even question God's Ordering of the universe and human society. Calvin‘s major idea that God was everything, that man existed for God, rather than God existing fOr man, was based on his idea that all mortal beings are tainted with 02‘igil‘ial sin because of the fall of Adam. He explained it this way: 72. "....the miserable ruin into which we have been plunged by the defection of the first man, compels us to raise our eyes toward heaven...to seek thence a supply for our wants...to learn humility...to perceive and acknowledge that in the Lord alone are to be found true wisdom, solid strength, perfect goodness, and unspotted righteousness."27 This overwhelming sense of God's majesty, and the duty of man to submit to God's will, which is the core of Calvinism, is very important in the develOpment of authority relations, as we shall see later. Predestination, Election And Calling: Foundation For Individual Authority It was Calvin's concept of ”predestination, election and calling" which broadened the foundation for individualism, and was the foundation for the American idea of "personal authority" held by the "selfish, self- governing saints" of the New World. Calvin defined predestination as "the eternal decree of God, by which he has determined in himself what he would have to become of every individual of mankind."28 Thus, God, in his righteous judgment, foreordained some to his Kingdom of eternal life, and some to the Kingdom of hell and death. God exercised his sovereignty over the human race, according to Calvin, by working through the lives of those he elected to heaven, influencing their behavior on earth in the direction of his will and for his divine purposes. Calvin based his concept of election on the Scripture Of St. John (6:16-45). "And this is the will of him that sent me, that everyone which believeth on the Son, may have everlasting life. No man can come to me except the Father draw him. Every man that hath heard and learned 73- of the Father, cometh unto me." Thus God, the Father, delegated to Christ, the Son, the author- ship of election, and makes known to Christ those he should call to the Kingdom. In order to obtain salvation and immortality, therefore, man should contemplate and look to Christ. Christ has declared, said Calvin, "that if we hear his voice, we shall be numbered among his sheep."29 Man does not enter into the blessings of God's election until he is "called," Calvin believed, but as soon as he is called God makes him aware that he is among the "elect." Moreover, since "God creates whom he chooses to be his children by gratuitious adOption," those he elects are not necessarily distinguished by virtues, but are deter- mined and called by his secret will to fulfill his divine purposes. Thus man can do nothing in the way of earthly works to insure his election, but he can regulate his behavior so he may hear "the call" of Christ. The way to hear the call of Christ and salvation is through "faith alone,"Ca1vin said. Man may apprehend "faith" through the study of the Scriptures, which declares God "as the creator of the world, and declares what sentiments we should form of him." Scripture also des- cribes "God as he appears in his works." The Scripture never seriously affects us, however, until the grace of God works in our hearts to confirm it. The testimony of the spirit is superior to all reason. In order that God's grace may come to us, Saint Augustine justly observes, says Calvin, that piety and peace 0f mind ““3“ t° precede Study °f the 71+. 30 Scripture. Man may, on the other hand, live such a pure and holy life as to apprehend the righteousness of Christ; and whoever believes in the righteousness of Christ, whether he reaches that state solely by faith or by works, is "justified in the sight of God," and will be called to salvation and immortality, Calvin said. In an age when the after-life of immortality was more important to man than the affairs of the world about him, the major question for the majority of individuals became "Am I of the elect?" For Calvin this was not a problem. He felt himself to be a chosen agent of the Lord, and was certain of his own salvation. To those who were unsure of their election Calvin gave the answer that they should be content with the knowledge that God has chosen, and depend further only on that implicit trust in Christ which is the result of true faith.31 Such an answer was impossible for the mass of people, whose faith was not of such strength. As time passed, the concept of predestination was in many cases abandoned, reinterpreted, or reduced in importance. Pastors were, of course, faced with the practical consequences of the concept in dealing with the daily lives of their congregation. One type of pastoral advice held it to be an absolute duty to consider Oneself of the elect, and to combat all doubts as temptations of the devil, since lack of self-confidence is the result of insufficient faith and imperfect grace. Thus, in one's daily living is one to attempt to make certain of salvation. and success in worldly affairs is recommended as evidence of God's grace, and leading to confidence in one's salvation. Idmnjfication of true faith was still a problem for the individ— Iml. Howtnmcessful in the life of this world must he be in order to be sure of salvation? A type of Christian conduct which served to in— was the general answer to this question. The crease the glory of God, answer was that th e individual must each day implication of such an lbw ulsudia.fashion, and make steady progress toward greater worldly success as evidence of his election. Since God has chosen the elect for salvation, they in return make n of God. There is im- life the glorificatio the aim of their worldly phcdlmrezacompact between God and man, while St. Paul states that therealend of election is for man to lead a holy and blameless life, WhiCh implies that the elect are tOOls of the divine Will on earth. The loyt ofthe COncept of predestination made it impossible for the elect once they had attained to lose God's grace and assurance of salvation. y life from the instant of it.33 Were this not so, God's plan for ever its conception, would be shattered. Thermactical consequences of gOOd works being the Sign Of election hase salvation, they are the means of is that although they canHOt purc fltflngridcfi'the fear of damnation. The Calvinist is in a position f his own salvation, or, God helps those who to Create the conviction 0 e ideas of election and good Supplementary to th "calling.' help themselvesju u This was not a new idea, pad the idea of n his translatio 35 Luther's concept of “”kS.Calvin develo n of the Bible (Jesus 501‘ it was originated by Luther i 53afl1XI:20-21). It is a Protestant idea. 76. is placed in a certain position in this "calling" was that every man pt himself to because it pt willingly, and ada world, which he must acce isthelnll of God. Labor in one's calling, was, in Luther's view, an Outward expression of brotherly lOVe, of discharging one's duty to fln-oneself the necessities of life. This was in contrast to who must be supported b l of God, Luther beli obtain y the rest of society. thelife of the monk, eved that llings were the wil Since all worldly ca the eyes of God. e calling has exactly the same worth in every legitimat hm umsemmmces of Luther's concept of "calling" was to support the stwms mk>of the social structure, and limit man's economic activities to subsistence.3 took the concept of "calling" and harnessed it to "election," race and salvation. Calvin In this relationship making good works a Sign Of g caNingtmcame "a task set by God" to glorify his kingdom. The way to 3'5 duty in worldly affairs, to live acceptably to God was to do on succeed materially. All every-day, worldly activity took on religious Signfimnme, became the means to certainty of salvation. Where calling, inlmtmuds interpretation, had meant subsistence in the status quo, as tward signs of salvation, as interpreted o conviction of the on gle call to battl the means t e for the Lord. It was by Calvinism it beams the bu both social and economic. the father of revolutions. ersonality And Culture Calvinism Leads To Individualism In P changed the persona cted the humanity of man Calvinism, first of all, lity of its adherents. :5 Protest against the Roman Church, it reje 77. repentance, atonement, which the Catholics accept in their cycle of sin, mflcase,fcllowed again by renewed sin. There was no longer the media— tinOf eludest who could diSpense atonement, hOpe of grace, and certainty of forgiveness. The Calvinist was alone with God, in deep sphfltualisolation. The private confession, which released tension mm.gnlt fln~the Catholic, was no longer available for the Calvinist.37 bbreownu with its emphasis on the fall of man, original sin, and erstanding, Calvinism was bound to a transcendental God beyond human und bflldtm ainemendous feeling of guilt. Under such tremendous tension ation and grace becomes a psycholOgical and guilt the search for salv y of salvation mean 5 release, and at last some necessity, for certaint WmceOfxumd. Individual self-interest becomes not only a necessity as a means to salvation, but also spiritual peace. WeberBBCites s the most widely read book of Puritan Bunyan's Pilgrims' Progress a describes the seen and has received the c e wherein Christian realizes Calvinist literature, and all to he is living in the City of Destruction, Inkehisgfllgrimage to the Celestial City. His wife and children cling with his fingers, and crying "life, to him, but stOpping his ears etumalJJje,“ he staggers forth across the fields alone, leaving his fifeand<fifildren behind. Only after "he" is safe does he realize it mWldbenice to have his wife and children with him. Inimglish Puritan literature eSpecially, the individual is warned for man is liable to lead one away from y is also likely to detract from aémnstthe friendship 0f man, a I" o ' ’ “m- 100nmch interest in one’s famll 78. attention to God and his will. Only God must be man's confidant, and 39 nothing human must stand between. Man is terribly alone The consequences of such ideology are many. Earthly social institu- in this world that he may find God in the next. tions are atomized into a society of individuals, each one seeking for himself alone the certainty of salvation. Instead of the unplanned life of the Catholic, the Calvinist God demanded a life of good works combined into a unified system. All behavior of the Calvinist must be subject This method to a consistent method which will lead to the glory of God. had at its base the control of the emotions so that Spontaneous, impul- sive enjoyment might be destroyed, and man be constantly able to maintain 1+1 and act on his motives to glorify God. Thus man is alone in a constant struggle~~against his emotions to maintain a life of reason, and against society, which may provide obstacles to his upward climb-u-upward, he hOpes, to God. The individual :ust be alert, clear in thought, deve10p inquiry, read and study the Scriptures, use reason, be quiet and peaceful that God's Grace may work in his heart. Here develops a great need for education and self improve- nent. Work becomes not just an economic means, but a spiritual end, for in it alone can the soul find health. Religion must be active, not merely Since God has commanded all to labor for their daily COntemplative . In the protest against the evils of a. , ~.ead, even the rich must work. Catholic monasticism, every Calvinist becomes, in his rational, planned and the whole life for God, in effect, a monk, becomes a monastery. Whuithe Calvinist became certain that he had been granted salvation, a powerful feeling and his tremendous tension ance came over him, “3 with this relea sense of sin was released. 9 was saved. Whe energy in the joy that h salvation, he no before to be sure of tOpS workin important thing is that he never 5 The humble sinners of Catholic influence of Calvinism's "election. are laboring in the "vineyard of the Lord. material goods becomes the external aith that God has ance of salvation, for internal f Kingdom in heaven. An assur is chosen by God Himself to do his work: andrewflmtionists are made. This i 0f the trials and executions of t elect, in their quiet self—controls exhibit blustering emotions of the princes, prelatesa secute them. Walker gives us an idea of "TO a persecuted Protestant of Paris it mus consolation to feel that God had a pla se came a new burs re the Calvinist h w works in gratitu g if h ism and Lutheranism, " become self- " The accumula evidence of salva chosen one for hi and the belief the is the stuff of wh s the evidence whic hese Protestant m and magistrate the psychologica t have been an unSpeakable n of salvation for him, 79- of Calvinist society was of the elect and of light-hearted assur- and guilt due to his as worked de to God. The e is physically able. now, under the confident saints who tion of tion, and the basis 5 agent on earth, and t one ich martyrs h history brings artyrs, where God's a deep contempt for the 5 who per- 1 feeling of the elect: individually, 80. est 0r King could do could to. from all eternity, and that nothing that pri pose in his behalf." frustrate the divine pur he Puritans, "the psychology of t mith describes the erness of America...." And Preserved S choice and sifted seed wherewith God sowed the Wild "Believing themselves chosen vessels and elect instruments of grace, fiwycmuhineither be seduced by carnal pleasure nor awed by human might. Taught that they were Kings by the election of God and priests by the inmmithn1of his hands, they despised the puny and viscious monarchs 45 Of this earth. " New England, the leaders tan merchants of These were the hard Puri heir English monarch, l conquerors and eventua Of a revolution against t hority over them Of the American continent. No one, they felt, had aut f God, they could inter- butGod. As individuals elected to the kingdom o 1 being had the right to pret his authority in their own way. No morta maize deCisions for these indiViduals, but the elect might make decisions lives of the rep n carried over in robate. Their feeling 0f personal which would order the to civil affairs. responsibility to God has also bee Thisis the ideological origin, which, reinforced by a century and ahalf of frontier living, is the basis Of the feelings Of perSOnal, hmmndmfl.authority in American culture. Calvin, however, had much to Sw'fimemfly concerning the subject of authority. Let us now turn to £15 views on this subject. All Authority Is Moral And Divine n tenet of his ”that God is all In conformity to the mai theology 81. and man exists for him," Calvin put forth the supporting idea that all authority rests with the Lord, who has delegated authority to Christ as head of the church, and to ministers to interpret his holy word and promote his spiritual Kingdom on earth. God has also delegated authOrity to magistrates and princes to rule in earthly, temporal matters. Calvin's views on authority were also in support of the idea that no human being or institution ought to stand between man and his God. "I only contend for this one point," he said, "that no necessity ought to be imposed upon consciences in things in which they have been set at liberty by Christ; and without this liberty...they can have no peace with God. They must acknowledge Christ their Deliverer as their only King, and must be governed by our law of liberty, even the sacred word of the gos— pel, if they wish to retain the grace which they have once obtained in Christ."#6 Miatters Of Conscience --- Exemption From All Human Authority Since God is all-knowing and all-foreseeing, mere man needs only to know his will and obey it. "Everything pertaining to the perfect rule of a holy life, the Lord has comprehended in his law, so that-there remains nothing for men to add to that summary. And he has done this, first, that since all rectitude of life consists in the conformity of all our actions to his will, as their standard, we might consider him as the sole Master and Director of our conduct; and secondly, to show "1+7 that he requires of us nothing more than obedience...., Calvin stated. In matters of the conscience then, believers are ultimately Subject 82. only to God, or to Christ, and to Ministers of the Church in those affairs where he has delegated authority. The logic of this view in its negative aspects was that humans have no authority over others in matters of conscience; ministers are the only exception to this, and their authority is carefully defined. Calvin was explicit on this point. "Now, since the consciences of believers...have been delivered by the favor of Christ from all necessary obligation to the observance of those things in which the Lord has been pleased they should be left free, we conclude that they are exempt from all human authority"!+8 Because Paul "extols the service of God and the spiritual rule of a holy life above all the statutes and decrees of men...human laws...are not on this account binding on the conscience,"l+9 although human laws, generally, ought to be obeyed. Believers who are seeking an assurance 01" their justification before God should raise themselves above the law, and concentrate on Christ alone. Moreover, any human tradition which, Without the word of God, attempts to place the conscience under religious Obligation, prescribe a method of worship, advocate ceremonies which obscure the simplicity of the gospel, and are used for dishonest gain, might to be rejected by the Church and all pious persons,50 Calvin elaborated. Let us turn now to Calvin's views on CiVil anthOrity. Civil Authority Subordinate To The Authority Of The Church Those men who would have no restraint on their liberty except Christ alone, Calvin believed, "£00115le imagine a perfection WhiCh can never be found in any community of men." He thought it the duty 83. of civil government not only to restrain man in his wickedness, but to excite him to the pursuit of a life of holiness. To these ends, man is under both spiritual and civil government. Said Calvin, "Man is under two kinds of government - one spiritual by which the conscience is formed to piety and the service of God; the other political, by which a man is instructed in the duties of humanity and civility, which are to be observed in an intercourse with mankind..."51 Again, since the service of God is paramount, civil government exists to support the spiritual affairs of man, and as an enforcement agency of Church deci— sions, must be separate from Church government, he believed. The jurisdiction of civil policy will "be no other than an order instituted for the preservation of the spiritual polity....Spiritual Polity...is entirely distinct from civil polity..."It is the duty of the magistrate to purge the Church from offences; the duty of the Minister of the Word to prevent the multiplication of offenders...Use 0f the Spiritual power of the Church ought to "be entirely separated from the power of the sword..."52 These are Calvin's early ideas on the organization of the Christian Commonwealth. Calvin elaborated on the objects of civil government by saying that offenses against God and religion "may nOt Openly appear and be disseminated among the peOple; that the public tranquility may not be disturbed; that every person may enjoy his prOperty without moles- tation;...in short, that there may be a public form of religion among Christians. . . "53 84. Calvin is here moving religion into the market place that it may encompass the whole life of man. For, as a Puritan leader later explained, "it is through the minutiae of conduct that the enemy of mankind finds his way to the soul; the traitors to the Kingdom might be revealed by pointed shoes or golden earrings..."5£+ figlstrates And Rulers Vicegerents Of God Calvin's early ideas on temporal authority was that magistrates and other rulers are "vicegerents of God" to whom he has delegated authority to order civil affairs. They should understand that their tribunals are "the throne of the living God." "Let governors take care of their peeple," Calvin said, "preserve the public peace, protect the good, punish the wicked, and administer all things in such a manner as becomes those who must render an account of their office to God the sapreme Judge." Moreover, he continued, if magistrates allow the liberty of their subjects to be diminished or violated, "they are perfidious to their office, and traitors to their countr‘yo"55 0n the other hand, said Calvin, "the people should honour their governors, patiently submit to their authority, obey their laws and mandates, and resist nothing to which they can submit consistently with the divine will." After all, since both ruler and subject, master and servant, are " brethren and companions in the service of the heavenly Master," both should cheerfully and willingly discharge their obligations and duties to each other. Since all rulers and magistrates have their anthority from God, subjects should submit even to those who are unjust 85¢ tyrants; tyrannical rulers have been raised up by God to punish the iniquity of the people, and it is his province to reduce them when he sees fit. There is just one exception to this, said Calvin; rulers who command anything against God ought not be obeyed. When Calvin said that the pe0ple should obey their magistrates, he was not Speak- ing of persons but of the office they hold and the functions they perform as God's ministers. "I am not Speaking of persons as if the mask of dignity ought to palliate or excuse folly, ignorance or cruelty...but I affirm that the station itself is worthy of honour and reverence; so that, whoever our governors are, they ought to possess '57 This our esteem and veneration on account of the office they fill.’ concept of the authority of "office," with the ultimate source of authority changed from God to the citizenry, is prevalent in American culture today. Let us now review Calvin's concept of the authority of the ministers 0f God's Church. Mthority of God's Ministers In the sphere of spiritual polity, Calvin believed it was the first duty of the minister to preserve to Jesus the authority which God has delegated to him as head of the Church. Here again, as in civil authority, God has delegated his authority to the "office" of minister, not to his person. "For when they were called to their office, it was at the same tine enjoined that they should bring forward nothing of themselves, but should Speak from the mouth of the Lord," said Calvin. Ministers have 86. the authority to constrain all the strength, glory, wisdom, and pride of the world to submit to his Majesty; supported by his power, may govern all mankind, from the highest to the lowest, may build up the house of Christ, and subvert the house of Satan...may instruct and ex— hort the docile, may reprove, rebuke, and restrain the rebellious and obstinate; may bind and loose...but all in the word of God," he explained further. Citizen Authority Under Early Calvinism Most important to the future of democratic authority relations was the fact that Calvin advocated that ministers be "appointed with the consent and approbation of the peOple." He felt also that the power of both the Church and the civil community should be wielded not by one man, but "by a legitimate assembly." In this way the citizen got his foot in the door of democratic authority, a position he never fully relinquished until he gained his economic and political goals in the New World. Calvin was certainly no advocate of democracy; it was rather the consequences of his views that led in that direction. He felt that "private persons should not, without being called upon, intermeddle with affairs of state, or rashly intrude themselves into the office of magistrates, or undertake anything of a public nature," unless .59 commanded by the governor whence they would than have "public authority.‘ Here was a vital contradiction in Calvin's ideolOgy. Laymen who became accustomed to electing their ministers naturally began to wonder 87. why they should not also choose rulers and magistrates. And by the time of the seventeenth century this question had become great enough to be the major issue in the English Civil War, and later was the main Calvin conceded that "the vice or issue in the American Revolution. imperfection of men renders it safer and more tolerable for the govern- ment to be in the hands of many, that they may afford each other mutual assistance and admonition, and that if anyone arrogate to himself more than is right, the many may act as censors and masters to restrain his ambition..."60 But he favored an aristocracy, or a mixture of aristo- cracy and democracy. The choice of their ministers, elders, and deacons by the peOple had in it the seeds of republican, representative government. By the close of his career Calvin had seen autocratic kings Oppress so many 01" his followers that he develoPed the theory of constitutional resist- ance through divinely appointed representatives responsible to God and t0 the p80ple. Such resistance on the part of estates or parliaments was constitutional and rational, he stated, because it was based on the lord of God (the Bible), a political covenant or compact (preferably written), a coronation oath, and some form of fundamental law. Thus, even in Calvin's own lifetime, he progressed from advocating "obedience to all rulers" who did not violate the will of God, to advocacy of representative government by common consent in both church and state.61 W Stimulates Growth Of Materialistic Secularism Perhaps of greatest significance in American authority relationships 88. ction which Calvinism gave to economic activity is the sanction and dire ental with the religious revolution which was and property. Coincid taking place in Europe in Calvin's time, was a commercial and economic rewflutflnxof even greater significance. Calvinism started in the urban centers, and being largely an urban movement, was face to face industry, and the increasing power of the with a culture of commerce, mmmlecflasses engaged in these activities. Calvin, as the main leader of the Protestant movement of his times, was faced, in the main, WiUltmachoices in regard to econOmic activity. He could adOpt the newcfi Dnmer that all economic activity beyond the need for subsistence g to the social order, because, said is immoral, greedy, and disturbin Luther, it leads men away from God, injures one's human brethren, and diamrmsthe world as God has ordered it. Or he could accept the exist- through the Christia God. Trained as a lawyer, n religion, to transform the ing culture and try. Calvin wmfle ofrmn's life into the City Of WoSbOUia.realistic and pragmatic. He was quite willing to use whatever worked toward attainment of his goals, and he varied his means as his ans to be in error toward successful experience showed previous me his motives, Calvin had before him the demon- accomplishment . Whatever ess of Luther's 3 saw that the poli position relative to the rising strated political weakn tical success of comnerce and industry, and perhaps h his religious movgment hinged on integrating it into the eXiStinS Culture. fimtgatleast, was the choice he made. Calvinism recognized the existence, if not the necessity, of credit, ”hr: 89. banking, large scale commerce and finance, and the other practical Calvinistic leaders placed the profits of facts of business life. of respectability as the earnings trade and finance on the same level of the laborer and the rents of the landlord. The financier, formerly his activities, under Calvinism under the censure of the Church for becomes a useful member of society. And lending money at interest, once condemned as usury, is sanctioned by Calvin provided the rate is reasonable and loans are made freely to the poor. 3 Calvin did not abandon the claim of religion to moralize economic life, but tried, instead of denouncing economic activity, to get men to dedicate material interests to the service of God. Not as any scheme of social reform, but as elements in a plan of moral regeneration, Calvinists stamped on the aptitudes of the business life a new Sanctification, where the - 64 fruits of such a life were used for the glory of God. Thus it was that the virtues of economy, modesty, industry, thrift, an organized life dedicated to God, and the conduct of business as itself a kind of religion, since it was in GOd's name. became highly rewarded in Calvinist society. This way of life was the exact anti- thesis of that advocated by the Roman Catholic Church, and the protest 65 at‘ainst Catholicism was undoubtedly a factor in its advocacy. At the same time, the sanction of economic activities fit in very well with the concepts of "election" and "calling". It so happened that not Only did a sober, frugal life of hard work constitute "a sure road to heaven, but also a dependable way to economic independence." God's 90. Spiritual elect, whose salvation was evidenced by prosperity in material things, were thus also the elect in economic power, a fact which R. H. Tawney and Max Weber advocate as responsible for the rise of "modern" capitalism, as found in the United States. In Tawney's words, "such teaching...was admirably designed to liberate economic energies, and to weld into a disciplined social force the rising bourgeoisie...proud of its vocation as the standard bearer of the economic virtues, and determined to vindicate an Open road for its own way of life by the use of every weapon, including political revolution and war, because the issue which was at stake was not merely convenience or self-interest, but the will of God."67 Because it sanctioned the way of life they were already leading, Calvinism took rapid and deep root among the middle classes of Western Europe, especially in Great Britain where the commercial revolution was pFOgressing most rapidly, was Calvinism most welcome, and it was there that some of its most outstanding leadership was develOped. Adam Smith, in his book "The Wealth of Nations," called "the Anglo- Saxon middle class Bible" by some, interpreted in an economic way the fundamental belief of English and Scotch Calvinists. Smith's main idea was that the individual should be allowed to work out his own salvation in economic affairs, unhampered by governmental restrictions. Thus was economic individualism added to the already existing religious and intellectual individualism of the Calvinist, it indeed being the conse- quence of the latter two. 91. e Of CahdnimnStimulates Education: Means For Intelligent Exercis Authority Dicontrast to Catholicism, where man's conviction of salvation dendscnfly on his faith in the efficacy of the church and its priest— kwod,lhctestantism, on the other hand, emphasized the personal respon- sihflitycfl'each individual to know and do the will Of God, as the way tOhisgnece. In the Protestant concept of salvation, therefore, is hmermu;the need for intelligence and its develOpment through education. Cdflinlnflieved that a true Christian life of piety depended upon hmeUigmmw; his appeal was largely to the intellect, which led to positive action by the individual. This is again in contrast to y appeal is to the emotions, and education where the primar ment for the highest type of Catholicism, 0ftheihtellect is not an implied require finistian living. Calmm.saw in education not only the means for God to reach the inmwimnflq but the means, as well, of maintaining the purity 0f the h an eduCated Clerical e doctrine throur Church, and of prepagating th 5 Christian Commonwealth, Calvin As the basis for hi andlay leadership. ports. These now advocated and proceeded to organize three major sup 'fiwxmregmeaching, the thorough discipline of every life, and now, to these he added religious education. His disciples should not merely they should be able to give a reason worthy have the Evangelical faith, y man of learnin t of his major i tice. In 1538 he g for the faith that was in them. Of the reSpect of ever deas, Calvin was not AS he attempted to do with mos lMg m mfiting his educatiOnal ideas into prac k..————— I 920 collaborated with two educators in publishing a prOSpectus of the Geneva Elementary schools. His main curriculum features were language study, arithmetic, and training for civil and church leadership. Later he and his followers develOped Secondary and University education, to make his educational system complete. It was Calvin’s theological seminary, as the main part of his Genevan University, then called an Academy, which provided the training for disciples which spread Calvinism to Western European countries and eventually to America. Calvin made of Geneva a haven for Protestant were provided with a church in refugees. The Marian Exiles from England which to worship in their own tongue. John Knox, in voluntary exile from his native Scotland, absorbed the major ideas of Calvin while in Geneva. Knox later declared that Calvin's system of religion was "the most per- fect school of Christ that ever Was on earth since the days of the APO~°>tleS-"72 These disciples, convinced that Calvin's message was that d suffer for their faith. They became ling to fight an Of God, were wil d revolution in E ngland, and the Presby- leaders of the Puritan—inspire nce of Calvinism was also teriam revolution in Scotland. The influe the Netherlands in similar fashion. spread to France and d in Geneva, naturally These disciples of Calvinism, who had studie n to their homeland Calvin's ideas on educa— Carried with them upon retur f the training of youth to maintain the tion as an integral part 0 ded a model for Christian community. His system of education also provi his followers throughout the world. 93- e of teacher as of divine appointment, viewed the offic "the faithful in sound that of educating Calvin having as its highest duty downina'from the Old and New Testaments. The teacher was thus to be a part of the ministry, and subject to its regulations. Calvin in- rs to be chosen by the ministers, but the Little tended for teache n to take a shar in a positio e of the power which Council of Geneva, um undeters desired to exercise alone, passed.a provision that the teacher must first be presented to the Council and examined by two of lvinism, its members.73 Teachers, in this way, originally under Ca sumrmitheir authority to teach from both the civil and religious segmnhsof‘Uuecommunity, and were therefore responsible to both for their behavior and teachings. marize and evaluate the ideological contri- Let us now try to sum bufinnscd'Luther and Calvin toward democratic authority. We shall ences of their ideology as these luate the consequ also attempt to eva e of the western world consequences develOped in the society and cultur andlaytme foundations for democratic authority relations. IdmflcgiCally speaking, Luther's contribution to freedom and 3Mdflmnmnme is a major one. His basic idea of salvation by faith alone istheiduathat breached, in European cultures, the authoritarian d enforced by the Roman Catholic Church. ideolOfJ of authority held an eventually to P inning of individualism, rotestantism, freedom, and 2"11315 ideological breach led as also the beg of the Selfrgovernment. This w individual's personal responsibility for his own salvation, Of his 91+. "self", rather than a concern with concentration and reliance upon the his role in corporate society. While Luther's ideology implied self—reliance, especially in regard to personal salvation, his emphasis on the socio-economic status guration as compared to the impetus it received quo limited this cohfi from Calvin in all spheres of life. While others were laboring also with ideas similar to those ex- pounded by Luther, his role and value in western culture is that of the pioneer, not unlike, in many respects, the pioneers of the New World who had the Spiritual courage to face adversity, defeat, and as an ideological, not a continent-conquering death. True, Luther w pimmer,tmt the spirit is the same. Luther was the scholar and theo- logian whose soul—searing experience of psychological fear and terror as a young man drive him relentlessly on in his search for spiritual s own efforts, had found his peace in faith Peace. After he, by hi p in conformance through study of the Scriptures, to have given it u al death. He was psycho- octrine would have meant spiritu ery foundation of his own With Catholic d nd defend the v loSilcally bound to expound a emotional peace; when he said, "Here I stand; I cannot do Otherwise," he was Speaking a psychological truth. It was the coincidence of history, or perhaps, as a Calvinist d" directing earthl oment which enabled him to would say, "the hand of Go y matters, which placed “tier in the prOper environment at the m defend successfully his ideas which led to the Protestant revolution, 95. Others before him had gone to the stake for similar heresies. But it was Luther's good fortune to appear on the stage of history when nationalism was rising and the German princes and their subjects were chafing; under the yoke of the Church. And certainly even more important was the fact that Luther's own prince, Frederick The Wise, believed in Luther enough to protect him and allow him freedom to study, write, and preach his ideas. Starting with the idea simply of a protest against abuses of the Church, Luther was soon driven by the Catholic pOpe and prelates to develOp an ideology to defend his original position. This was followed with further ideolOgical develOpment as the social consequences of his ideas, such as the Peasant's Revolt, demanded such expansion. The cultural significance of this manner of ideolOgical develOpment is its negative character. While Luther's basic idea of "salvation by faith alone" came as he sought freedom from terror, it was positive in the sense that it was seeking a positive good, spiritual tranquility. But a major share of Luther's ideas were born out Of PI‘OteSt to an already existing culture. Time after time one is confronted with the fact that the major characteristic of much of Luther's and Calvin's ideolow is its exact antithesis of Catholic culture. The emphasis on work as an end in itself, on the evils of luxury and extravagance, on r h. ‘ _ . . . . . .Oresight and thrift, On moderation and self disCipline, and on rational calculation, are examples of this fact. For these ideas were the exact 96. Opposite of the Catholic culture of corporate society, where man, for salvation, needed external good works, not reason; where he was assigned a role by God in a society which provided for the needs of all; where he must concentrate on salvation in the next world rather than concern himself with earthly affairs; and where the leaders of the Church, as vicegerents of God in absolute power, but subject to the vices of mortal man, at times reveled in an orgy of sensuality, luxury and extravagance. Luther, in particular, renounced the evils of monasticism, since his religious offices as a monk had not been effective in bringing him psychological peace. And the fact that the German peOple did not like to pay for the upkeep of the idle friars, may have also influenced Luther in this matter. The emphasis upon work which has been so prevalent in American culture had its origin in Luther's ideology. It is not a positive emphasis on work as the basis for physical and emotional health; rather, its cultural foundation, now modified, to be sure, was that idleness is a sin. With the monks as an example of the evil of idle- ness, Luther merely advocated the exact negative of this Catholic cultural pattern. He maintained that 3131;): _r_n_a_r_1_ should labor for his own subsistence, and reinfOrced his idea by making idleness a sin. 80th Luther and Calvin protested against the moral laxity of the Catholic Church. Both were willing to sacrifice man's freedom that he might be f0rced to obey God's laWS, and in spite of himself, reach 97. the eternal peace of salvation. Luther would have the divine princes of the civil state enforce God's laws; Calvin would have the dictator- ship of the ministry, resting on the power of the subordinate civil state, acoomplish the same task. But the seeds of freedom, so abhorrent to both men, had been sown in the ideas of individual responsibility for salvation and the equality of all men before Christ. Luther started with the idea that man should be free from the priesthood and alone with God that he might find But he had no idea of extending freedom into the other areas salvation. However, the peasants wanted to be free from their masters, of culture. and the squelching of their efforts to gain liberty later led to their desire for freedom from the Church and from religion, which was standing in their way. The significant point here is that freedom in the Protestant culture of Western civilization is "negative freedom"; the negative cultural foundation of freedom set by Luther has never changed. The middle Classes wanted, fought far, and won -- freedom from restraint by religion and the state over their economic activities. The American Colonies The frontiersman wanted freedom —.'-——.—— wanted freedom from the mother countrY- The modern businessman and irfl'arestraint over any of his activities. This the American schoolboy want the same freedom from restraint. 3eEt‘iltive aspect of freedom has progressed so far in urban society, that Erich Fromm has written a thought-provoking book called "Escape From Freedom." 98. The negative aspects of Protestant culture have powerful impli- cations in other areas. We shall comment later on the conflict between Protestant culture and the social nature of man. Since our subject here is freedom, independence and self-reliance, let us comment in that relation on the consequences of Luther's ideo- 10gy in the social structure of the civil state. Luther's emphasis on the individual's direct relation to his God fastened on society an ever-widening dualism between spiritual and secular affairs. Not only had the egoism of the Protestant stimulated selfishness, but the Church no longer had authority or power to regulate man's secular affairs. As we have already mentioned, Luther turned to the civil state for regula- tOry power in the Peasant's War, an act which merely transferred the authoritarianism of the Church to the State. Except in the environment of the New World, man never attained complete freedom under Lutheranism. And even in the New World, where complete freedom did become a reality under the conditions of frontier living, it was the selfish, negative freedom of Calvinism in a secular environment, as opposed to the positive freedom for social responsibility as taught by Christ. Where Luther was the pioneer in ideolOgy, Calvin was the theolOgian, fornulater, organizer, disciplinarian, and educator. He took the ideas or“ Luther and Martin Bucer and welded them into an explicit theoloSy Which was adepted by the middle classes as the salient ideology in their struggle for power. Calvin's statement that in matters of conscience, no other human 99. was to stand between man and God, is an example of how he made Protestant ideology explicit. Luther's ideology had implied this for the total culture; Calvin stated it explicitly- The ideomgicai difference in the two men was in their focus of emphaSiS’ With Luther the main focus was on salvation by faith; with Calvin it was discipline and social organization as the means to establishing the Chris ian commonwealth. Luther turned to the social structure only when the conseQUences of his ideas forced him to; with Calvi this was the major emphasis . We see in Calvin's major tenet of theologbi the majesty, power, and omnipotence of God. and the original sin Of man, ideas WhiCh are essentially no different fron the character of man and deit;r as ex- F-r seed by Catholicism. But it was the dynamic concept of predestination, election and Calling, coupled with this concept of man and. deity, which revolutionized man. culture, and society in the {Jesters world- The acceptance 0f existing economic activity, if used for the glory of God, merely made Calvinism acceptable to the middle classes, who selected out of it the things useful to their purposes in winning power. As it was Luther's ideology, it was the sociocultural conse- quences of Calvinism which ultimately led to freedom, independence, and democratic authoritY- Certainly of primary importance in the develOpment of democratic freedom was the change that came over the personality of the Western lOO. man who embraced Calvinism. Formerly under Catholicism he had been little moved to change. He lived in a corporate society which pro- vided for his basic spiritual, social, and physical needs. As a Calvinist he was alone in the world with the same just and fearful God, and could have no spiritual peace, as tainted with the sin of Adam, he must work and deny and work until his external accumulation of material goods convinced him he was among God's elect. And anyone who denied his freedom to accumulate the external evidence of salva- tion was bound to incur his dedicated Opposition and wrath, because he was being denied psychological peace. As one writer so aptly phrased it, the Calvinistic Puritan, because there was within him the feeling that "maketh him more fearful of displeasing God than all the world, he is a natural Republican, for there is none on earth that he can own as master."7 This was particularly true after the Calvinist was convinced he was of the elect, and there was nothing mortal man could do to alter GOd's plan for him. This was the spiritual independence which provided the self-confident saints with the psycholOEical power to stand up to prelates, princes and parliaments, or anyone or anything that stood in the way of their freedom. Non-conformity, growing out of this same Spiritual independence, has been not only invaluable in the maintenance of democratic freedom, but also, through the production of new ideas, has been and is the er*silne of spiritual, social, political and economic progress. 101. Other consequences of Calvinism have served to reinforce and buttress the new personality which it fashioned. Calvin taught that no one but God was to have authority over the conscience of the indi- vidual. Since the affairs of conscience were sum and substance of the most important goal of earthly living - salvation - why should man be under the authOrity of his mortal brethren in civil affairs, those things of lesser importance? The fact that man was wicked and needed restraint, as Calvin explained, so God's work, and not man's be done, apparently did not alter man's desire for freedom in all aspects of his life. This is particularly true when the elect are God's chosen few in both Spiritual and worldly goods, and freedom is necessary for then to continue the way of life they are already pursuing. Moreover, Calvin had later in life championed liberty as that state of society host conducive to the happiness of the people. The fact that the citizen had become accustomed to electing his minister inevitably led to the question of "why should he not also choose his civil ruler?" And the fact that rulers and magistrates acted like Ordinary men, varying in character from the saintly to the have, only served to add emphasis to the question. Calvinists who were accustomed to interpreting the Scriptures in their search for salvation, were logically bound to interpret for themselves Whether or not the command of a ruler was contra‘y to the will of God. The elect especially, who owned no other master but God, could not help but question the rightfulness 01" human statutes 102 . and institutions. Justice, in this manner, often became equated with the interests of the elect, and revolutionary political movements carried a religious sanction. As a major tool of religious individualism man was led to seek education and skill in the use of reason and inquiry. These were necessary if man was to hear the call of Christ to salvation and immortality, and to be able to read and study the Scriptures, so he might know God's will after he had been elected to his kingdom. These same tools, of course, were useful in any area of culture, and were very powerful in the hands of the elect who were seeking Political, economic, and religious freedom. Calvinism was also important in bringing education to the masses. John Knox, one of Calvin's most famous disciples, as a result of his democratization of the concept of election to include the common man, created, at the same time, a need for the common man's education. As a result, Knox and his followers develOped the concept of education as a national requirement. Everyone, rich and poor alike, needed education; the rich would secure education themselves, but the pOOr must be com- Pelled to attend schools, even though the public has ’00 sapport them,75 I’mox said. Education for the total citizenry has been one of the most impor- tant concepts to come out of Calvinism as a tool for winning and main- taiming freedom and independence, and for the intelligent exercise of democratic authority. But education, which first was motivated by the 103. desire to bring man closer to God, secondly to enable the individual to discharge his duties of democratic citizenship, has now been harnessed primarily to the motive of the accumulation and consumption of material goods. The foundation of the cultural character and motive for freedom and democratic authority we find in the develOpment that saw the middle classes, particularly in England, embrace Calvinism because it accepted and gave religious and moral sanction to the economic activity that was already, for many, the major motivation. It must have been a happy dis- covery to these peOple to find that business success also led to election to God's Kingdom. What actually happened was that the leaders of the times selected out of Calvinism those ideas useful to their purposes, and harnessed them as the power to reach their own goals. Calvinist theology was often accepted where Calvinist discipline was repudiated.76 The individualism in Calvinism was helpful in the struggle of the middle classes to gain power. The Christian society, or the disciplining of civil life in accordance with God‘s laws, was not acceptable to the middle classes, 50 this part of Calvinism was rejected and remolded to support individual- ism. Individualism, and the Christ—like society, were, in Calvin's day. and still are, contradictory and incompatible. As Calvin in pragmatic fashion changed his position, he won political and economic power through his adherents, but in the process, whatever authority existed in his religious position was gradually compromised away. In the words of one 104 . writer, "The classes whose backing was needed to make the Reformation a political success had sold their support on terms which made it inevitable that it should be a social disaster."77 Moreover, we find that the separation of Church and state, a cultural pattern which develOped most under Calvinism, provided an effective wedge for the middle classes to win freedom and independence. At the same time this separation resulted in the Protestant churches losing their power and authority over the character of society, and eventually forced religion into a compartment in ineffectual isolation from other sociocultural affairs. The weakness of the position of the Protestant church became evident even in Calvin's day, when the Council of Geneva simply refused to act on the minister's suggestions in regard to the economic affairs of the laity.78 The only weapon which Calvin and his Church had to win the authority of the people was to appeal, through preaching and teaching, to their intellect and emotions in the moulding of public Opinion. In a capitalistic society, even this re- quires some money. And since Calvin separated church and state, and Save the power of law enforcement, necessary for taxation, to the state. he in effect emasculated the effectiveness of the authority he attempted to retain. For the poor, who would support the Christ-like interpreta- tion of economic activity, have no money to give to the Church; while the rich, in return for their support to the religious community, Will demand such terms as will render religion inoffensive to, or in suppOrt 0‘5: their economic activities. 105. These two consequences of Calvinism, its adeption by the middle classes and the separation of Church and state, resulted in freedom remaining negative in character and being won on the wings of secular materialism. These consequences meant also that the major motive be- hind the desire for freedom and democratic authority, self-interest, was first religious in character as man sought salvation, secondly, both economic and religious in character as business success assured the Calvinist of election, and finally, as secularism won control, becoming primarily economic in character. The materialistic consequences of Calvinism, while ultimately leading to loss of freedom and independence, up until the mid—nineteenth century, actually increased the independence of Americans. At this pOint in American history, a higher percentage of Americans were economically independent, and thus had more actual freedom than ever before or since. Certainly, the characteristics of enterprise, dili- gence, thrift, and hard work, so stimulated by Calvinism, have been important cultural patterns in the winning of freedom and independence. But these same cultural patterns in Calvinism long kept the common man ‘ from winning his freedom and independence. This part of Calvinism meant that economic inequality was fostered -- the elect and successful in business gaining great power which they used to deny freedom to those they considered reprobate. This was also morally defensible under the concept of predestination, for God, it was believed, had Predestined some to his Kingdom and others to serve them. 106. The moral overtones which attach to freedom in American culture have their foundations in Calvinism. As we have already pointed out, self-interest, originally directed toward salvation and psychological peace, was partially responsible for the moral overtones which freedom acquired. But perhaps of equal, if not more importance, in the cloth- ing of self-interest in moral terms was the religious character of the society in which the middle classes were trying to gain freedom. Calvin had much to say about the character of civil society as a part of the Christian Commonwealth. Under Calvinism we see the implied compact between man and God in religious life extended to ruler and subject in civil affairs. Since, under Calvinism, all authority resides ultimately in God, governments in civil affairs are valid and ought to be obeyed Only if they are founded on God's laws. Calvin was explicit on this point. "I approve of no human constitutions, except such as are founded on the authority of God, and deduced from the Scripture, so that they may be considered as altOgether Divine. . . The question is, whether it be a human tradi- tion, which everyone is at liberty to reject or neglect."79 Moreover, since all of life, under Calvinism, took on moral signi— ficance in the positive sense, as the road to salvation, the explicit addition of civil affairs to God's domain meant that those in control, as well as those advocating change, must clothe their ideas and actions in moral terms. Both political and economic activity, to be legitimate in the eyes of the peOple, needed moral sanctions. The middle classes, 107 . for example, while they had victories still to win, were the spearhead of revolution. Once in the saddle they became advocates of order in the social structure.80 And both positions were maintained in the name of God. The strenuous morality which was very much a part of the Calvinist way of life denied freedom to some and won it for others. Calvinists have been the spearheads of social reform in all English-speaking nations. In the issues of slavery and woman suffrage, both so important in freedom, independence, and the widening of democratic authority, Calvinist Puritans have been notable as leaders. The other side of the coin of the strenuous morality of Calvinism was the bigotry, and lack of charity and freedom for those men who in- sisted on being human, and who could not or would not abide by the patterns of culture in Calvinistic society. Two characteristics of authority, important in the maintenance of freedom and independence, also have their cultural foundation in Calvin's teachings. Calvin not only explicitly defined the authority of various offices, but enunciated also the principle that anything not authorized by 90d through the Scriptures must be prohibited to man. We find both of these Calvinistic principles working in the American Constitution, where authority is carefully defined, and expressly limited, so that any authority not delegated by the pe0ple still resides in them and may not be used. The concept of equality, which came to the fore early as the basis 108 . of the Peasants' Revolt in Germany, has always been most important as a basis for seeking freedom in Protestant culture. As these German peasants stated, if Christ died for all men, why should our masters be free and we be serfs? Even though illiterate, these peasants were not long in seeing the implications of equality under Christ as related to their freedom. Luther had said, too, that all employment is important in the eyes of God; Calvin had stated that both master and servant are brethren in the service of God. If man is equal in the most important Sphere of life, God's grace and salvation, why should he not be equal in those areas of life which are of lesser Mportance? And if some men have freedom, why should not the rest, their equals in GOd'S sight, have freedom also? These are the implications of Christ's teachings, long hid from the masses under Catholicism, which suddenly became evident under Protestantism, as man studied the Scriptures in the search for his own salvation. And particularly in those segments of Protestantism whose ideology is based on the New Testament teachings of Christ, has the revolutionary impetus toward freedom and equality been great. Self—reliance has, of course, been inherent in Protestant culture ever since Luther enunciated his doctrine of salvation by faith alone. To be sure, Luther had no idea that the individual should be self- reliant in anything except salvation. It was Calvinism which provided the cultural foundation for self-reliance in economic affairs. The consequences of the individualism inherent in the ideolOgy of both 109. Luther and Calvin ultimately led to self-reliance in political acti- vities. Like that of freedom, the character of self-reliance was negative, in the sense that reliance on self was primarily based on self-interest and not on the shared interests of the community. The contradictions and conflicts in Protestant ideology was early discovered in the culture of the peOple. For example, the separation of church and state has certainly made freedom possible in both spiritual and temporal affairs. At the same time, the dualism of religious and civic life, which resulted from the separation of spiritual and tem- poral power and authority, has resulted in the ascendance of temporal, materialistic secularism, and the decline of religious and ethical influence over the affairs of society. Negative freedOm, unrestrained by ethical and moral considerations, has resulted in the peOple, to attain "success", bartering away their freedom for materialistic gain. The Calvinistic emphasis on predestination, election and calling stimulated inequality whereas other patterns of Protestant culture promoted equality. Perhaps the most important contradiction of all is between self-interest as the major motive power of individualism, and the social nature of man in the Christian commonwealth. The person who is conditioned by his Protestant culture to be an individualist in the social meaning of the term, is going against the deepest physical and social drives of the human animal, so biologists and social scientists tell us. To obtain and maintain even the first requisite of life, that of good health. we are told, man must have love and the llO. companionship of fellow humans. Calvinism would have man put human associations into the background, lest, in a weakness of the flesh, they lead him away from God and salvation. While the religious motiva- tion has been replaced with "success", this humanity-denying pattern is very pervasive in American culture today. These basic contradictions in Protestant culture have been largely responsible for the rise and decline of freedom, independence and self- reliance in the United States. We have discussed the ideolOgical seeds of freedom, independence, and self-reliance; let us turn now to their develOpment in England and America in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. NOTES 1. and 2. Bainton, Roland H., Here I Stand, New York: Abingdon Press, 9. 10. MCML, p. 96 M” p. 98 _I_b_i_c_1_., p. 119 33.3., p. 185 333., p. ll+l and 211+ £933., p. 207 _I_b_i;d_., p. 202 323.9.” p. 200 Tawney, R. H., Religion And The Rise Of Capitalism, New York: The New American Library, 1947, p. 81 11. and 12. Ibid., p. 84 l}. 14. 15. 16. l7. l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. Bainton, Roland H., Here I Stand, New York: Abingdon Press, MCI/IL, p. 188 Ibido , p. 189 Tawney, R. H., Religion And The Rise Of Capitalism, New York: The New American Library, 191W, P- 90 Ibid., p. 87 Ibid., p. 90 Palm, Franklin Charles, Calvinism And The Religious Wars, New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1932, p. 99 Walker, Williston, John Calvin, New York: G" P' Putnams 80115: 1906, p- 158 Ibid. , p. 147 Tawney, R. H., Religion And The Rise Of Capitalifl, New York: The New American Library, 191W. Pv 91 Walker, Williston, John Calvin, New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1906, p. 76 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 43. u. 112. Ibid., p. 129 Calvin, John, A Compend Of The Institutes Of The Christian ReligionL Edited by Hugh Thomson Kerr, Jr., Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1939, p. 6 Big" P- 35 Ibid., p. 132 Did” p. 3 and 1+ EM” p. 128-129 32391., p. 136 2923., p. 108; 14-17 Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of C.apitali(sr;1;ls Translated by Talcott Parsons, New York: Charles scrioners o . 1930. p. 110 3131., p. 111-112 333., p. 104 MM P- 115 £3.13.” Po 79 Did” pp. 81, 85, 86 kid.” P. 117 “d 39. 3313., p. 107 333.9.” P. 117 flu p. 120 - ' ‘ York: The Tawney, R. H., Religion And The Rise Of Capitalism, New New American Library, 1947, p. 201 . . ' m Weber. Max. The Protestant Ethic And The SPlI‘lt or Ciiiiiilioés. Translated bYTalcott Parsons, New York: Charles bcrl 1906. ' . . P tnams Sons, ”any? Williston, John Calvin, New York. a. P u p. 1 54. E; JV. 63. 64. 66. 113. Chmted from Palm, Franklin Charles, Calvinism And The Reliéious thus, New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1952, p. 16 Calwhh John, A Compend Of The Institutes Of The Christian Ekligggb Edited by Hugh Thomson Kerr, Jr., Philadelphia: Presby- terian Board of Christian Education, 1939, p. 173 Ibid., p. 175 Ibid., p. 120 32£§., p. 174 and 175 lbid., p. 175 lbid., p. 121 Ibid., pp. 178-179 lbid., p. 204 n v q - o . . “A. . F -T .. -‘f r. -awnej, R. H., Religion And The Rise Of Capitali.m, new ior.. m1, " ' . .‘ l A“ eue new American Library, 1997, p. luZ Calwhh John, A Connena Of The Institutes Of The Chris inn 4‘: ,. -. . 1. .— r.‘ '7 ; ‘ . D — BEL::£EJ Edited by nugn Thomson herr, Jr., rflliahelphla- .resby terian Board of Christian Education, 1939, PP- 7‘: 405’ 207 :an. pp. 69, 7o, 21;, 214 T a ~°3 p0 Ell-cl2 £19. p. 172 \" p. 212 £° ) p- 206 1" 1 T: . . -. . . " \ ’ ,..° 1 (a ’7' ‘r‘v‘ 7: ’1' ;a¥naxranklin Charles, CalVinism And The ieli‘ions ”3-9, .c1 .0 ‘vfi'. :: V "t ,- ., r“. nenry holt a Co., lghni, p. 22 T n. .. .- - , , ‘ , - ° (1,1 T-T V 1*: “Bdnefv R- 1., Religion And The Rise Of Capitalisns new -or“ in *g - ... "an m .ew American Library, 199/, p. 92 lbid. \ '! PPO 93 and 95 and 65- 323-3.. pp. 96 and 98 iahnsFianklin Charles, Calvinism And The Religious wars, new 0 :. . - \_ fl 1"" he“?! holt 8: 00.. 1922. p. 21 67. O\ 03 o 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 71+. 80. 11h. Tawney, R. H., Religion And The Rise Of Capitalism, New York: The New American Library, 19117, p. 98 Palm, Franklin Charles, Calvinism And The Religious Wars,New York; Henry Holt 8: Co., 1932, p. 97 Walker, Williston, John Calvin, New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1906, p. 428 Ibid. , p. 367 Palm, Franklin Charles, Calvinism And The Religious Wars, New York: denry Holt 8: Co., 1932, pp. 32-33 Walker, Williston, John Calvin, New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1906, PP- 3771 389a 3909 391 Ibid. , p. 270 Tawney: R- Ho. Religion And The Rise or Capitalism, New York: The New American Library, 1937, p. 16’? Balm, Franklin Charles, Calvinism And The Religious Wars, New York: nenry Holt 8: Co., 1932, p, 81, Tawney. R. H., Religion And The Rise Of Capitalism. New York: The New American Library, 1947, p. 99 3.11.3” p. 122 REM pp. 107-108 Cabin! John, A Compend Of The Institutes Of The Christian Religion, Edlted by HUgh Thomson Kerr, Jr., Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education, 1939. p- 177 “Tawney, R. H., Religion And The Rise Of Capitalism, New York: The new Merican Library, 191+"), pp. 98-99. CHAPTER IV - MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS IN ENGLAND AND AIvIERICA, 1600-1800 The rise of the middle classes in EurOpe progressed most rapidly in England and Scotland. In these two nations the leaders of the Protestant revolution for political and economic freedom were Calvin- istic. John Knox, an avid disciple of Calvin, whom we have already mentioned, led the revolution in Scotland. John Milton, as a prolific writer and ideological leader, was influential in both nations. It was he who led the way in the resistance to unjust rulers such as Mary, Queen of Scots. John Locke, who is credited with considerable influence upon the ideas of American Revolutionary leaders, was also an effective writer in advocating resistance to tyranny. He was a major exponent of the doctrine of mutual contract between ruler and subject. And Oliver Cromwell was the military leader who led the Calvinist middle classes successfully to power during the English Civil Wars. 7 The period which preceded the English Civil Wars was an important one. The Marian Exiles, who had drunk deeply at the fountain of Calvinism in Geneva, returned to England and were leaders in the middle Class struggle for power and freedom. This struggle was brought to focus in the Civil Wars. While not forgetting the importance of the preceding period, let us turn our attention to the English Civil Wars, as the important events wherein freedom and other ideological founda- tions of democratic authority were central issues. THE FIRST AND SECOND ENGLISH CIVIL WARS Blades Of Conscience And Eggality of Authority Especially significant in the deve10pment of American democratic 116. authority relations are the First and Second English Civil Wars. Not only did the struggle of that time result in 20,000 Englishmen migrat- ing to the New World, but man, if but briefly, actually gained a measure of freedom at that time. Most important, too, was the ideological ferment of the times, which resulted in many of our modern democratic ideas and institutions. Here also the issue of authority was clearly joined on a much wider plane. Not only was the major issue, the reli- gious one of freedom of conscience or individual authority, at stake, but the issue of King and aristocracy having authority over the common man was also important. The aristocrats were the most devotedly Royalist and the largest owners of land. The Catholic Earl of Worcester and the Earl of Herby, and many others of lesser name who maintained in their great country houses an almost feudal state, were the target of bitter feelings by ordinary men. Thus, it was in the bitter struggle against the Royalists that so much hatred of the aristocracy was generated, a feeling that crossed the ocean with many of the English immigrants, was increased and Spread during the American Revolution, and is now deeply embedded in American culture. During the first Civil War, many of the trOOpers in Cromwell's New Model Army, especially among the calvary, "had enlisted to win them- selves civil and religious freedom." Two years afterward, the New Model Army remained as an instrument of the Independents and the Republicans.2 After the first Civil War had been brought to a Close. 801diers had much idle time and since many of the officers and noncommissioned Officers were preaching the Protestant religion to the trooPs, new ideas 117 . grew rapidly. New Model Army leaders said that "King and Lords must go.... "5 Individual merit should be the sole road to greatness. We see here what we now call equality of Opportunity, based on talent and ambition rather than hereditary position. Every man born in England, the poor man included, said these Army leaders, "had a right to elect his rulers, (and) share in the framing of the laws." Colonel Rainborough, one of the New Model leaders, appealed to the "law of God", and the "law of nature", as the basis for his prOposal that every man ought to have "the choice of those who are to make the laws for him to live under.”P Here was a voice Calling for political freedom as a basis for other freedoms. For the natural implication of these ideas was universal suffrage, republicanism, and religious freedom. These were the things "The Levellers," political and ideological leaders in the army, demanded of Cromwell and Parliament. Although these ideas were submerged in the course of events, never to rise again in England, except in different few more in keeping with English culture, they do appear again in the Jeffersonian ideology of the American Revolutionary era, and even prior to the English Civil Wars in Roger Williams' Rhode Island colony. In Iact, the Opening paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence recite these same ideas, and Jefferson's concept of the "natural aristocracy" is based on the talents of the individual. This, indeed, was a new idea of authoritY- EVBI'Y man was to be equal in authority, the citizen was to be the sovereign, in equal 118. sharing with all other citizens. hing and Lords were no longer to have authority over the poor, the citizens of meaner station in society. And no one was to have authority over the citizen's religious thinking and worship; he was to be free. it was the "attempt" to control worship and thought, fiction though it was, that the Independents wanted done away with. And to exercise his new authority, the citizen was to have the franchise, important as a foundation for freedom. But it was at the close of the second English Civil War, culminating in the execution of Charles I, that the issue of freedom and authority was brought clearly into focus. The soldiers of the New Model Army, Independents under Independent leadership, had learned they could not trust a Presbyterian Parliament. Very unlike the freedom and democracy which they had advo- cated, Colonel Pride and his soldiers stationed themselves at the doors of Parliament, and either imprisoned or excluded those members who were not amenable to the Army views. The Rump that remained in Parliament passed this resolution: That the peOple are, under God, the original of all just power; that the commons of England, in Parliament assembled, being chosen by and representing the peeple. have the supreme power in this nation; that whatsoever is enacted or declared for law by the Commons in Parliament assembled hath the force of law, and all the peOple of this nation are concluded thereby, although the consent of the King or House of Peers be not had thereunto. Here was a statement of political freedom leading to democratic authority, made by a group who used authoritarian methods to exclude those members from Parliament who held dissenting views. This group, as history soon recorded. had. through their monOpoly or force, temporary 119. control of the government, but they did not have authorit , approval to act for the majority of peeple. A few weeks later, as he was await- ing his fate upon the scaffold, Charles I proclaimed the Old World ideas of authority: For the peOple....truly I desire their liberty and freedom as much as anybody whatsoever, but I must tell you, their liberty and freedom consists in having government, those laws by which their lives and their goods may be most their own. It is not their having a share in the government that is nothing appertain- ing to them. A subject and a sovereign are clear different things. Here, in these two statements of Rump Parliament and conquered King, the issue of freedom, independence and authority is clearly joined. Shall the citizen hold the authority of government, and in common free- dom with all other citizens, be his own sovereign? 0r shall he be ruled by, and be a subject to, the authority of others? Although resolved "ideologically" in the United States at the time of the American Revolution in favor of freedom of citizen authority, other aSpects of American culture have provided the basis for the issue to remain an increasingly important one in contemporary times. Of this we shall have more to say later. The execution of Charles I was indeed a symbol of the rise of freedom and citizen authority, even though the deed itself, Opposed by the majority of pe0p1e, killed all h0pe of democracy in England for many years to come. That the "authority" of the times rested with the peOple, even 1'vhough the external power and control appeared to rest with Cromwell and the Army Leaders. was evidenced in the people's support of "Freeborn 120. John" Lilburne, England’s Spokesman in 1649. Lilburne was one of those "self-confident saints" of Calvinism who did not fear to stand up to those in control in defense of the rights of the pe0ple. As an example of the influence such a leader had on the advance of free- dom and citizen authority, let us describe some Of Lilburne's major activities. John Lilburne --- Fighter For Freedom And Citizen Authority A short time after Charles I was executed, Lilburne had begun to Openly castigate the Cromwell government. When called before a Council of State, he refused to take Off his hat, saying the gentlemen of the Council had no more legal authority than he. The Rump Parliament had made it an act of treason to write or speak against the government. Lilburne had written that the govern. ment was an usurpation and a tyranny. When brought into court to face treason charges, he bullied the judges and said it lay with the jury alone to decide whether his writings had contravened the law. Although the issue "in law" was clear, the brow-beaten judges not only left the decision to the jury, but accepted, in apparent fear, a verdict of acquittal, which Openly defied the government and its law. When the verdict of acquittal was given, there arose "such a loud and unanimous shout as is believed was never heard in Guild Hall, which lasted for a half hour without intermission; which made the judges for fear turn Pale and hang down their heads. Such a demonstration in the Presence 121. of a tribunal backed by the political power of government had been a thing unknown in England in the time of the Tudor and Stuart Kings."7 The Rump Parliament then passed a special act banishing Lilburne and including the death penalty should he return. Within a year he was back and saying that the passing of the act of banishment was beyond the powers of Parliament. A second time he was placed on trial for his life. Some six thousand spectators witnessed his trial, and public Opinion was so much aroused in his favor that Cromwell massed his soldiers in fear of an outbreak by the peOple. Lilburne was again acquitted by a jury which defied Parliament and its law. In somewhat the same spirit as i-Iartin Luther, Lilburne had defied those in control, fighting for the freedom and rights of the individual, and authority based on the majority Of citizens. "Lilburne's two trials had established that juries were judges of law as well as of fact, and could even set aside an unpOpular law by their verdict."8 The peOple knew Lilburne was fighting their fight; that was why so many were supporting him. His courage gave them courage and confidence, stiffened the backs of the juries to exert the authority of the peOple in the face of those in control. These events were exceptional in the advance of freedom and citizen authority for the English Speaking people. The Quakers --- Examples Of Individualism, FreedomLAnd Equalifi Out of this great intellectual and religious upheaval of the 122 . English peOple arose a number of religious sects. One of these, the Quakers, led by George Fox, was, in its members, the epitome of free- dom, equality, and the authority of the individual. Luther's idea that every man was to interpret Scripture for himself was here to bear its most individualistic fruit. The doctrine of "inner light", that inspiration comes from within each man, not from without,9 was the center of Quaker ideology. Every man and woman was a priest, Fox said. The influence of example, martyrdom, wickedness of war, con- stant joy, the possibility of heaven on earth through the good works 01‘ man, engendered a positive psychOIOgy that eXpressed itself in the most militant individualism. Refusing to accord any outward reSpect to Officials and magis- trates, the Quakers scorned all worldly authority, and outwardly refused, by dress and behavior, to acknowledge anything but equality, an implication accepting no earthly authority over them. To implement their individual authority, so that the religious aPpeal was made as simply and directly to the person as possible, all Ordinary religious services and rituals were abolished. NO special priesthood or church organization was allowed, so that the "inner light" would be unimpeded in leading the individual to joy and heaven 0n earth. Many thousand Friends emigrated to the United States, and their militant authority of the individual has had a wide influence in our Culture. Their living example of equality and freedom, their exertion 0f the rights of the individual, not only dramatized the importance of 123. these rights but gave others the courage which was needed to win them. Let us turn now to Roger Williams as the earliest New World leader for freedom and democratic authority. ROGER WILLIAMS: LEADER FOR FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE Social Revolt For Freedom And Independence The story of social revolt in America begins with ROger Williams. Unwilling to compromise his Separatist convictions with the conformity necessary to practice his calling as clergyman in England under the policies of Laud, he had come to Massachusetts in 1631. Finding in the Bay colony a theocracy of church and state equally if not more authoritarian and conformist than hethad left in England, Williams, in line with his convictions, began almost immediately to dissent against the Puritan oligarchy. Since he believed in the separation of Church and state, Williams said repeatedly that magistrates could not punish religious offenses without exceeding their lawful authority. In the first American attack on white man’s imperialism, he had disputed the King's right to give a patent granting land to his subjects without considering the rights of the Indians, whom, Williams said, were already prOprietary owners of American soil. He had refused to take a "residents oath" required of all inhabi- tants who were not freemen of the Bay Colony. Used by the magistrates to consolidate their control of affairs, this resident's oath involved 121+. d the authority of the governor and swearing to submit to the laws an magistrates, and to "give speedy notice" of any sedition "plotted or intended against the government." Williams objected to the oath the things that belonged because it mixed the things of Cesar with to God.12 But it was the threat of "democratic congregationalism" which trates to finally banish Williams from caused the clerics and magis the colony. In great contempt of the controlling oligarchy, Salem a man of unacceptable views, their minister. church had made Williams, Reyuning both Williams' views and Salem's petition to act on a claim forland, the General Court felt they had the situation in hand. How- ever,in the first recorded American instance of trying to generate public opinion against those in control, Salem Church wrote to other " for their "heinous sin, and cmnthes'wo admonish the Magistrates likewise the deputies." h1the words of Brockunier, "the crime of ROger Williams was 14 that he dared to Oppose and to appeal to the peOple." He had dared toawt as a free man, had appealed to public opinion and Opposed the authoritarian oligarchy could tolerate. governing class, action which no he "hath broached and divulged dyvers hithe words of his sentence, I newe and dangerous Opinions, against the aucthoritie 0f magistrates...' d freedom Openly broached, one Here we see the issue of authority an of the first instances on American soil. The same issue was later lish Civil Wars by the same Puritan brought to focus in the Eng 125. Separatists from whence Williams had come. Although Williams' banish- mentfkom the Bay Colony appeared, at the time, to preserve the control the deed actually resulted in further develOpment Of of the oligarchy, As a result of his banishment, contemporary democratic authority . lony at what is now Providence, Rhode ifilliams established a new co lial was broken forth anew, under the very Island. "The reign of Be nomfisof the horrified saints - and just beyond their jurisdiction." c Authority Become Natural Righps _F_r_eedom, Independence, And Democrati s the Rhode Island settlers made a As one of their first act cownmnt establishing liberty of conscience as a natural right. Family and through mutual consent beam» married men, held the franchise, affairs of the colony. The whole body of voters held controlled the nd had the power of making al the town's common land in trust a lotments. mum wiuithe right to vote went a right to prOperty, which in Providence Plantation meant a grant of land equal to that of the other purchasers andanquuity in the common or undivided lands on similar terms of absolute equality.16 The Providence Compact of 1640 was 8.00n8titUtion drawn up by a CWMflJtee elected by the inhabitants....It was not framed and adOpted the magistrates but w n 1658 all freeholders were made on the authority of as initiated and ratified by the whole body of townsmen. And i eliSible to vote. t time on American soil we see the embroynic Here for the firs political freedom, economic develOpment of religious, economic: and 126. Moreover, these basic founda- independence and democratic authority. tions were regarded as natural rights. We see also the beginnings, not only of the ideology of equality in the New World, but an effort, through equal allocation of land and the universal franchise for all family heads, toward its implementation. Forerunner, even at that early date, of the ideas of Robert La Follette and Theodore Roosevelt, Williams' "political ideas were grounded in a concept of social cooPeration rather than atomic individualism." He believed that "the very principles by which the government was obligated to protect civil rights to life, liberty and PI‘Operty....meant refusal to protect an acquisitive and arbitrary free- 19 H dom of action which infringed the rights of others.... A refuge for the Oppressed and unorthodox dissenters, the Providence colony also played a large role in the breakdown of authori- tarian orthodoxy. It became a base for Quakers who had succeeded, by 1661, in breaking the monOpoly of the orthodox church in the Bay Colony. Certainly we may say that Williams was a precursor of Jefferson in many of his ideas. He was also an example for Others in the New World. But let us look now at colonial life prior to the American Revolution. COLONIAL LIFE IN AMERICA PRIOR TO 1776 Early Patterns or Authority Relations In America The cultural develOpment in authority relations during the colonial period of our history has perhaps been most important of any 127 . ImrMMiof our nation's develOpment. For it was these original ex- periences that established the sociocultural and psychological founda- Subsequent develOpments, it tions of modern, democratic authority. 0 stamp deeper into the culture the e shown, have merely served t riginated in this early per cmlb iod of our character of authority which 0 history. Three patterns of great importance in authority relations were (1) the resistance to any developed from earliest colonial times: rve the convenience, self—interest, authority or control which did not se (2) the freedom of the indivi- Or purpose of the individual or group, dual to escape the jurisdiction of any authority or control over him; the frontier, and (3) the this was provided by the unlimited space of develOpment of the authority of the group as one means for individual success (exchange of work, and self-defense). Although the forms have tors in the ideolOgy of authority are very deep changed, these three fac in American culture today. Modern examples of resistance to control and juvenile delinquency, and corporations authority are the black markets 0 find legal ways to circumvent govern- whokflre a battery of lawyers t mentxegulations. And during World War II, when winning was used to ation of all sorts of justify any means used, there was open viol government regulations. The frontier has vanished, and with it certain kinds of freedom. Butthe individual is still able to escape control over his person to le of the modern city, by a great degree by becoming lost in the jung 128. the ease of moving to another part of the country where he may choose new associates, and by his shallow involvement in group life which is common in an urban society. The modern counterpart of the authority of the group we find very highly develOped in the use of the committee as the major form of social action in our society. Let us turn now to some of the historical eXperiences behind these patterns in authority relations, and to the cultural develOpment of freedom and independence on which they are based. Cplonial "Authority" versus British "Control" One‘of the earliest colonies, the Massachusetts Bay Company, was chartered in England and was, in the eyes of the English government, a business corporation. Leaders of the Bay Colony secretly carried the charter with them to the United States and used it as the constitution Thus, the very beginning of American 01‘ their self-governing state. These experience was marked by resistance to constituted authority. Puritan leaders wanted to be free to govern themselves. The colonists made up their minds not to obey law just because it was law, but merely to obey such laws as they individually approved of, or such as did not interfere with their own convenience 0r profit. In every colony there was constant conflict with the Royal GovernOrs. The executive, therefore, represented to colonists a person who was an "outsider" and hostile to their interests. Executives came to be considered as someone to be distrusted, disobeyed and thwarted whenever ..., a.-. 129. possible.2 Here Americans experienced the idea that for them to be free, the power and duties of executives must be carefully defined and limited. In a similar fashion, the judiciary, which was usually an arm of the royal executive or a member of the royalist group, came to be distrusted and thwarted whenever possible. Juries would not convict no matter how flagrant the law breaking. The peOple stood tOgetheI‘ to defeat the courts and to protect the interests of their friends, This was a pattern, moreover, that neighbors, and of themselves. existed until the last frontier was settled. And since the differences between the English government and the colonists continually widened, culminating finally in the American Revolution, this habit of resistance to control grew continually deeper in American culture. By the time of the American Revolution it had become a patriotic duty to break the English laws and resist their efforts at control. This ideology was, of course, promoted by such radical leaders as Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine, who were developing public support for the start of the War of Independence. .Illiluences Toward Democratic Authority When Roger Williams traveled into the periphery of the frontier be.Yond the jurisdiction of the authority and control Of the OllgarChy 01‘ the Bay Colony, there to establish his life again, he was establish- ing a pattern of culture which was followed on the American continent SO long as the frontier lasted, until near the close of the nineteenth fl“ IBO. cenmnyu If a man grew tired of those in control of affairs, all be e himself beyond their jurisdiction, where he was need do was to.remov pable of. e his own authority in such a way as he was ca free to exercis the frontier on We shall have more to say later about the influence of authority relations . ' s of the individual depended too, the progres From the very stars, ed help to build his log upm1the authority of the group. He need e food for his family, and to pro- r enough land to rais cabin, to clea He did, of necessity, de fer to the Opinions tect them from the Indians. This pattern of behavior amidecuflons of the group in order to survive. alsafollowed the frontier, and is now very deeply stamped in our culture. 8 another factor which develOped as the colonies grew There wa hority 'f the indivi atly bolstered the aut dual and his primary ut that the middle ame to resemble the tolerant which gre colonies of Delaware, New grmnm. Trevelyan points 0 York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, soon c relufibus character of Roger Williams' Rhode Island Colony because they 5 ans religions. These colonies com- um of different race 0 had left the northern were the asyl tained, besides the EngliSh—speaking Puritans wh Huguenots, Palatines, Scots, and colonies, Swedes, Dutch, Finns, peOple made it necessary, if Quakers.23 The very heterogenit)’ 0f the the<fi¢izen was to enjoy for himself any measure of freedom in the vidual matters, to extend the same free- exercise of authority in indi rather than co thus became the dmntc Others. Toleration, nformity, 131. bashsfor political rights, as the means for the exercise of authority. freemmh independence, self-reliance, and cooperation were the impli- e in colonial times in America. cations of the facts of lif THE NEW ENGLAND TOWN - MOTHER OF DEMOCRATIC AUTHORITY _Qg§urilfbundations of the New England Town and Town-Meeting ayed a major role in the develOpment The New England Town has pl and independence in Am e of people of English culture ofselfqeliance, freedom, erican culture and d out of the respons society. It develOpe must provide for themse vironment where they lveS, sur- e frail craft that car to a frontier en ried them to the When they left th and plunged into the vive or die. unknown wilderness to shores of the New World, k out an existence, they had no one to rely on but build homes and has fference in the Old World Society Adams portrays the di ions they faced in themselves. they had left, and the condit Amwica: Ophet, no chief, no lord, no in them were all plain people. d nor protected from above. They ere; and there was no one of society'; nor, in their for such. there was no pr Those dwelling neither guide such as they w For those towns bishop, no king. As such, they were stood on their own legs, to hold them up. They had no dark and troubled hours, did they peOple who had left an authoritarian It is not unusual that a culhue~should build for themselves in a new environment an entirely uthority and gover at problems must be so nment. Moreover, the demands different pattern Of a lved or conse- Of a frontier environment meant th easily result in death. quences suffered which might 132. Because of these two cultural and environmental circumstances, we find both fast and slow evolution toward self-government. For example, in Braintree, Massachusetts, one of the earliest towns in the Bay Colony, we find that the first government of the town was similar to the government found in the business corporations chartered by the English King to foster trade and settlement in other parts of the world. Braintree was first governed by a sort of board of Directors which met in the Great and General Court, and not for half a century, in 1693, did the town meeting, legislative type of government evolve.25 The town of Hadley, Massachusetts, on the other hand, was founded in 1659 with the town meeting type of government."26 Its founders had acquired considerable experience in Connecticut Plantation. The motives behind this self-governing type of citizen authority was expressed at an early date. Before they left the parent Connecticut Plantation, the fifty—nine people who established the town of Hadley met at Hartford and drew up a compact for self-government which was also "a contract to protect and promote the mutual interests of the proprietors in undivided lands."2'7 As was often the case, the impetus which led the Hadley proprietm‘s t° break With the Parent settlement was religious controversy, the major motive in the new settlement was economic, and the means for implementing this interest was democratic self-government . All three patterns were important in the culture which the peOple Of New England colonies brought with them to America. As Calvinists 133 . their salvation depended upon economic success and the free exercise of their talents as individuals. As rugged individuals controversy was inherent in their social relationships, and since their social relationships were centered in the churches, it was here that con- troversy started. Moreover, self-government is the only type of government that is psychOIOgically and socially compatible with individualism as a universal of culture. This fact is brought out so well at the time when the clergy and magistrates of the Bay Colony were met in solemn conference to consider the problem of what to do if a Governor-General should be sent out from England. Their answer was: "We ought not to accept him, but defend our lawful possessions, if we are able." Adams evaluates this statement as "prephetic, ... not only [ta-£73. century and a half of history, destined to include the War of Independence, but also the essence, moral and social, of a civilization, instinct with stubborn individuality and self--reliance."28 But perhaps the most prephetic of all was that the primary concern of these leaders was their possessions, the material things of life. The cultural foundations we have been discussing are important in understanding the character of that social institution which evolved Out of these foundations, the New England town. By the time the town meeting, legislative, democratic type of self-government had evolved in the towns, the secular and economic interests were, if not' in ascendance, shortly to become 50. Freedom and independence in the 134. New World are secular in character and tied primarily to the economic motive, even though in terms of individual feelings, freedom and independence have psycho-social manifestations also. Organized Christianity had been a continual barrier to freedom and independence until Americans won these things through secular institutions. This fact has had much to do with the isolation of religion from the civil affairs of the community, as well as influencing freedom in the direction of irre3ponsibility. Now that we have described the cultural foundations of the New England town and town-meeting, let us describe briefly its character as a democratic institution which has influenced the character of American culture and societY- The New England Town-Meeti_ng The size of most New England towns was determined by convenience in getting to Sunday meeting, for all were obliged to attend church, even for some time after the theocracy had lost control of community affairs. Thus every town was small in area, an incorporated republic Of one community of families centered around the meeting house.29 The meeting-house was used for religious services and for town- meetings having to do with civil affairs. In both cases the social aSpects of the meeting were also important. In the towns organized at a later date, such as Hadley, the first town-meetings were held in the homes of the proprietors, and thus were informal in character. Regardless of the local differences between towns, the sociocultural 135. foundations and manifestations in each were similar. It is especially significant that the New England town which was the foster mother of much of American democracy was based on the intimacy of primary social relations and obligations of peOple who knew each other well. These peOple were also relatively homogeneous in culture, and lived under the same physical environment. These facts gain significance when contrasted with the character of urban culture and society today. While the number varied from town to town, as few as three townsmen could call a town-meeting in the early days of Hadley. There also, each inhabitant was warned of the meeting by word of mouth; this was later changed to "posting the warrant" in conspicuous places to announce the impending meeting.30 Some towns, especially in their early develOpment, levied fines for non—attendance and tardiness at meetings. The business to be transacted at the meeting was listed in the warrant, and no other business could be transacted on that meeting day. Gould describes the preparation for town-meeting in the contem- POrary era in the hill country of Vermont, where he says these meetings are still "less than two cents different from town-meeting in Boston days when homes were a foot-race away from the block-house." Town meeting day is the climax of a feverish season. The tax COllector has sold preperty on which taxes remain unpaid; selectmen have printed the Town Report; the Warrant has been posted. Caucuses have been held, candidates are lined up. Every item of business to be transacted has had full and com... plete public discussion. Groups have debated in the store and post office. Men have sat by the kitchen stove and considered the reports. Women have talked at sewing circle and Mizpah 136. Class. Children have been holding mock town-meetings at school. Only town-meeting itself remains. We find here sociocultural conditions with all of the compon- ents of successful self-government, once praised by De TOCqueville as the most successful example of pure democracy he had seen. Citizens have been fully informed of the business of their government; it has been fully discussed; they are ready to render judgment on past trans- actions, and approve the direction and means for handling town affairs for another year. In these little republics, all power rests in the people, who delegate very little authority to town officers, just enough to carry on the necessary business. These officers are care- fully instructed in their duties, are accountable for their actions in the Town Report, and are forced to answer questions in town-meeting regarding their stewardship. The officers of the town, with the exception of those who are fully engaged in town business, serve with very little pay. Their regular vocation comes first; their duties as a town officer are mainly done "after hours" of the regular vocation.32 In the early history of town-meeting government there was an enforced equality of town service. Serving as constable or surveyor was looked upon as a public duty to be performed by everyone in turn. In some towns failure to accept service after election to office en- tailed a fine. Moreover, the town constable had to collect all the taxes, for which he got no pay. To add insult to injury, he had to account for the taxes he failed to collect. With men desiring to avoid 137 . such an office, it became a standing joke of town meeting to elect someone to office just to get his fine.33 This system was, of course, changed by the middle of the eighteenth century. It is significant also that in Hadley, considered a typical town, there was for many years no official ballot prepared for the election of town officials. A row of boxes, one for each town office to be filled, was arranged on a platform at the front of the meeting house. Voters merely placed in each box a slip of paper bearing the name of the person they desired to fill the office.31+ This is the direct delegation of authority from each individual person, in collective action with his fellow citizens, to those he would have carry on the affairs of the town. Political organization, by limiting the voters' choice to those on an official ballot, kills this kind of direct democracy. Use of the committee form of authority appeared early in town meeting. It was used mainly as the vehicle to allow a group of the town's best qualified or trusted citizens to study a problem and report to a later meeting of the total citizenry with the facts on which to base action. Certainly this form of self-government was about as near govern- ment by the total body of citizens as is possible. The influence of every citizen could be brought to bear on officials and on the decisions affecting him as a member of the community. The budget and every business transaction of the town was. in “feet, approved or disapproved 138. by every citizen who voted, with the majority ruling the affairs of the town. It is also in this primary relationship type of democracy that the minority can actually make its influence felt in due pro- portion to its strength. Not only does the culture of the peOple affect the character of their social institutions, but their eacperience in their social institutions affects the direction of their cultural change and develOp- ment. This reciprocal relationship has been most noticeable in the character of the New Englander and the town-meeting form of direct citizen authority. The Culture And Character Of The New Englander Certainly the primary cultural pattern develOped by the town meeting was self-reliance in all things. This was a part of the American character that was so necessary to the pioneer as he subdued the American continent during the next two and a half centuries. In their town meetings New Englanders dealt with all sorts of problems:; religious heresies, land titles, internal improvements, means of communication, education, temperance, pauperism, care of the insane, public lands, currency, taxation, municipal debt, and so on. It is true that their solutions to problems were often crude, superficial and wrong. But the uportant thing insofar as the culture of the People was concerned was that they were solving their PrOblemS in their own way and living with the consequences of their own actions. They paid for their experience as they went along, WhiCh only served to 139. drive practical self-reliance deeper into their culture and emotions. They built up the habit of relying upon themselves in all things, a pattern they were forced to adOpt at the outset because they could not do otherwise, but one which took on a positive character as these hardy peOple gained experience, self-respect, confidence in their own ability, and the love of the freedom that is attached to self-action. The New Englander in town-meeting days was also characterized as the epitome of rugged individualism and absolute independence. "No one tells a Yankee how to vote, no one dictates; and only another Yankee can persuade. When a man arises and cries, 'Mr. Moderatorl', and is prOperly recognized, no man living is big enough to make him sit down. So long as he speaks on the subject, uses prOper words, and Obeys parliamentary procedure he can say what he pleases...Each voter brings his utter independence into the hall, and from the congregation results a majority decision in which unity is attained without anyone's losing the least bit of his own separate self."35 This maintenance of independence, possible only among the self-reliant, free, and economically independent, has been, and continues to be, an important factor in the behavior of most Americans. The reaction of the New Englander when he feels he is threatened with a loss of independence is one of quick and decisive rebellion. Voters show concern lest someone put something over on them. They will argue for hours over a principle, and then in a matter of minutes pass a school budget of several thousand dollars, with scarcely a comment.36 140. Gould describes an instance of this independence in action. In Freeport, Massachusetts, one year, the school superintendent was asking for money to make some alteration in the system. His speech was to the point, he knew what he was talking about, and he made only one mistake. He concluded: "In the neighboring town of Yarmouth this plan has been in Operation for five years and has proved highly successful-“I therefore move that we adOpt it in Freeport." Instantly a farmer in the back of the room jumped to his feet and called, "What do we care what they do in Yarmouth?" That was all. The motion was defeated by the thunderous "No".37 This day to day concern of the New Englander with his own problems, and the fact that he paid the bills for his own experience, made him intensely practical in both private and civic affairs. The same exper- ience had a tendency to foster "localism", a natural prior concern with the problems of his own community, and little concern with outside problems in state or nation except when they began to affect his pocket- book or freedom and independence. A good example 01' this are the resolutions passed in 1809 by the town of Hadley, protesting the National Embargo Act which was hurting the pocketbooks of local people.38 The maintenance of freedom, independence and self—reliance demands equality of authority in ordering the affairs of the community, that is to say, equality of citizen sovereignty- In New England town-meetings an almost rude, absolute political equality prevailed “hi-Ch was rigidly enforced by custom amounting to a common law. This was not only the 141. right to vote, but the privilege of every citizen to be heard on the issue at hand. Thus the equality of responsibility for public service, already described, was balanced by equality of political privilege. This did not mean that the peOple did not defer to the leadership of squire and parson; but let any leader behave in a manner which ignored the independence and equality of the individual and he would be rudely 39 put in his place. The self—government of the New England town was an example of the maximum use of informal relationships in exercising citizen authority. Informality comes naturally in the small community republic where every- one knows everyone else and primary relationships are the rule. Town- meeting day is a perfect example of the formal legitimizing of decisions that have already, at least in large part, been made in the informal councils of the community. It is nothing short of amazing that the town business for an entire year, including election of officers, can be decided and approved in a single day. This could only be accomplished there most of the decisions have already been informally made, and need only formal approval by the majority of citizens to make them legitimate. Let us consider now some of the influences of the New England Tom on the cultural develOpment of freedom, independence, self-reliance, and democratic authority in the nation. Eluence Of The New England Town On The Nation's Culture While it is impossible to evaluate the influence of the New England Town except in a general way, it is conceded to be a great 142. educator of the common man in America. The experience which he gained in ceping with the problems of the town in New England was carried with him as he moved across the continent into the frontier settle- ments and mining camps of a growing nation. His culture went with him also, of course, and the cultural patterns of love for freedom, self- reliance, equality of political and social privilege, absolute inde- Pendence, and quick rebellion when he thought these natural, God-given rights were being ignored or trampled upon, have become embedded as universals of American culture. True, the frontier environment also nurtured these cultural patterns of self-government and individual authority. But it was in the New England Town that they were first used as a basis for the building of a society and social institutions which manifested and implemented the basic ideas, values, and attitudes of the culture. It was this experience in the building of a community and its institu- tions that has been so valuable and so influential in the building or the young nation that is the United States. The Calvinistic Character of the New Englander which drove him relentlessly onward meant that the breadth of his influence would be great. Often the first to arrive in the frontier community, the New Englanders fast became leaders and were ready, with experience gained in the older settlements, to establish the kind of society and culture they already knew and valued. In Spite of the land-realllating Ordinance Of 1787, we find the New England town as far west as Wisconsin, where it has been a major influence in the cultural develOpment of that state. 143. The close connection between the economic interests of the individual and the local government of the New England towns, was a pattern that also spread across the nation. Individual interest and responsibility in town government was often due to the fact that in the small community the citizen could easily see a definite, tangible advantage to be derived from the honest and efficient adminis- tration of his community affairs. While this pattern remains except- ionally important today, it should not lead us to ignore other motives of a social and psychological character which give direction to the Women, especially, have more freedom than men lives of many peOple. Self-interest t0 Openly express such motivations in American society. coming out of the Protestant Calvinistic culture of the New Englander, however expressed, remained the major motivation in the develOpment of American culture. It was a natural develOpment also that the rebellion against the British started in New England, and the first two years of the Revolu- tionary' War were largely fought there. Samuel Adams found in Boston Town-Meeting the perfect vehicle in which to originate and carry forward his activities which finally led to a Declaration of Independence. In the tight-fisted, freedom loving, independent New Englander, he found the type 0f personality whose emotions reacted quickly to George III's economic and liberty-denying measures. Adams needed only to supply the ideas leading to the remedy for the grievances, independence, and °r3anize the distribution of his propaganda. such an organization he 144 . England towns which he welded found already available in the New togeUuu'with his Committee of Correspondence. This was the combina- Town and the New England personality, which, tion, the New England 1 and utilized so effectively by Samuel Adams, understood so wel t Lexington that April mornin y exploded on the green a g in eak with the Old World co eventuall nception of 1775,1eading to the formal br e cultural change in authority relationships had authority. Much of th zflremhroccurred; the formal break with Old World patterns of authority pendence and the winning of the ocmuwed with the Declaration of Inde Revolutionary War. perience and the character of the New Englander The town-meeting ex state and national affairs. ried over into private, was naturally car h was started in the New England Oneimmortant cultural pattern whic us under Jacksonian democracy, is the towns and received new Mpet e and Federal Congressmen to their local constit- accountability of Stat gland towns sent to the legislature Iumcy. The delegates which the New En were carefully instructed what course they must pursue. If they went r constituents they were liable to sharp against the wishes of thei rather than every two or six years, as is censure. And every year, ator had to stand for re-election. now the case, the New England legisl Iflus actions had not conformed to the wishes of a majority of his ptly returned to private life and someone else constituents he was prom accountability has been basic elected in his placeoul This strict and authority of the private citizen in the maintenance of the power 145. in state and national, and now international affairs. It has also been influential in maintaining "localism" in the affairs of the nation and is the means for control of congressmen by those who have the power of concentrated wealth. As we have pointed out, the development of the town-meeting type of self-government and the self—starting, self—reliant citizenry occurred in the small community of primary relationships in a homo- geneous culture. Moreover, even though economic self-interest was always a paramount motive of the peOple, the social and moral obliga- tions that are always present in primary relationships, served to keep the selfish motivations within the bounds of community interest. Socio- cultural patterns could scarcely have been develOped, with the possible exception of economic self-interest, which would have been more in harmony with a frontier environment. These cultural patterns were, certainly, an outgrowth of Calvinism as it develOped on the American frontier, and so this harmony was to be expected. So long as the frontier lasted and most Americans had a chance at economic independence the culture which came from New England served the people well. This is true in spite of the greed which develOped from the economic aspects of the culture. When the physical environment of the Arnerican peOple changed from the small rural community to that of the city with a more hetero- geneous population and culture, and from primary to secondary relation- Ships in society, the old culture would no longer fit the environment, 146. and sociocultural disintegration began. For various reasons, which we shall not discuss here, the ideoloaz of the New England-frontier culture has been maintained in American society and social institu- tions. Actual social practice, however, which is directly influenced by the socio-physical environment, has undergone considerable change in urban society. This has resulted in a conflict not only between ideology and social practice, but also great psychological and social These cultural conflicts in the lives of peOple and their institutions. These we shall develOpments have important implications for education. discuss in our final chapter. Let us consider the American Revolutionary period in relation to Our discussion of the develOpment of freedom, independence, self-reliance and democratic authority in American culture. THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIOI‘JARY PERIOD Not unlike the fire which burns the glaze of the potter's vase 50 that it withstands the erosion of usage for centuries, the American Revolution fixed the basic character, in our culture, of the feelings and patterns of behavior regarding authority. It also, of course, advanced freedom, independence and self-reliance. Wars and Revolutions are times of deep emotions, and it is the ideology of such periods that becomes deeply etched on the PsyChOJ-Ogical Systems of the peOple, and in the same way becomes deeply embedded in a Culture. 1h7. c Freedom estricts American Economi o the start of the Revolut George III R ion, the gulf For several years prior t e American colonists had grown steadily wider. between George III and th Whtuethere was a complex of factors involved, the develOping struggle Originated primarily out of a clash of economic interests, and ideo- were molded to support those interests. "Mercantilism, an logies ationalism of the sevent eenth and eighteenth economic arm of the rising n cenmndes, had as its major objectives national self-sufficiency and prmnmrity for the dominant merchant and banking class....Colonies y the mother country to produce essen- d solely to be eXploited b to provide an unlimite existe d market for surplus tialxaw materials cheaply, and to offer a minimum of economic competition." manufactured goods, ch, the British rulers had ne r struggle with the Fren glected d used the Opportunity edom in the control of Due to thei to successfully the American colonies, who ha wrest from the mother country an expanding fre the British again With the defeat of France, their own affairs. conomic affairs, which meant the strict turned their full attention to e particularly in regard to economic enflncement of colonial policy. ncy Act (1764), the Stamp Act (1764), the Curre matters. The Sugar 767), the Tea Act (1773), and the Act (1765), the Townshend Duties (l mpted to tighten the restrictions on the Intolerable Acts (1771+). atte Colonial trade and economY- Since the colonies themselves had develOped considerable trade, and had started to manufacture their own gOOdS. these restrictions 148. evoked immediate resistanc e . Egonomic Interests Become "Rights Of Ma§_"__Fpr Colonists; "Law A112 grder" For Crown In the Western world, where Christianity is a part of the culture, nd justified in moral terms. Economic self-interest must be clothed a "the Rights of Man", or "law and order", without interests early beCame which no man can progress. "Royal (and even Parliamentary) efforts to enforce mercantilist policies were damned as contrary not only to the 1 rights of man as well, while rights of EnglisMen but to the natura y to taxation of any kind achieved the colonists' fundamental antipath immuiality in the idealistic slogan, no taxation without representa- tion!"u3 their quarrel with Crown and Parliament, appealed Americans, in hts as Englishmen under the British from their Charter rights to their rig COMMfitution...they insisted that it was "fixed"; that it was, in the ing law to live by. Not only was the words of John Locke, a stand Comfifltution unalterable but it contained in it the immutable laws of where made clear, but that nahue. Just what these laws were was no thflyimcluded "life, liberty, and prOperty" was universally acknowledged, FinaUy3 Americans said, Parliament itself was bound by the Constitution, andtw’the laws of nature. "As the supreme legislative derives its mmhonnqrfrom the Constitution, asserted the Massachusetts Circular 5 of it without destroying its Letter, it cannot over leap the bound on foundationS. And if Parliament should, nevertheless, pass its 149. constitutional limits, its acts would be null and void and of no force.” The rebuttal of Crown and Parliament was one of law, re- presenting authority to the British, and control to the Americans. British statesmen insisted, in the Declaratory Act of 1766, that the colonies "have been, are, and of right ought to be, subordinate unto and dependent upon the imperial Crown and Parliament of Great Britain," "and that Parliament had full power and authority to make laws and statutes of sufficient force and validity to bind colonies and peOple "1+5 01‘ America...in all cases whatsoever. These principles were behind the restrictions placed on the c010nial economy. Although all other duties imposed by the Townshend Acts had been repealed, a token duty on tea imports into the colonies had been maintained "to enforce the principle." The colonists, exert- ing their individual authority in a cooperative fashion, had almost stOpped drinking tea. The East India Company, as a result, fell into financial difficulties, and the British Government, in 1773, allowed it to export tea to the colonies at a very cheap price. Lord North, British Prime Minister, insisted on maintaining the three pence-a-pound duty in the colonies, saying the king regarded it as "a test of author- ity.”l+6 Such a situation was made to order for Samuel Adams, Who was trying to organize revolt anyway, and on the night of December 16, 1773, he induced a party of about fifty men to disguise as Indians, board the Ships in Boston harbor and de their tea overboard. George III, outraged at this action, “18th through Parliament 150. the Penal Acts against Massachusetts, which provided for the closing of the port of Boston, cancelling the charter of the colony, and ordering political trials of Americans to be conducted in England. For the purpose he was working for--independence--Sam Adams could not have asked for more apprOpriate action than that Of the British King. For he cut away the last remaining Open colonial Opposition to inde- pendence. As one historian, an Englishman, states it, "The Penal Acts meant in fact war with the colonies. They were defensible only as 47 acts of war. . . ." After this it was only a matter of time until the outbreak of Open conflict at Lexington in April, 1775. It is not hard to visualize the emotional upheaval of those Americans who were actually engaged in the war against the fountainhead of their own culture. Let us try to analyze briefly the issues at stake in this struggle. We have already mentioned the clash of economic interests between Britain and America. But there was also at issue two different con- cepts of authority, based on the culture and environment of two different social systems. Operating from two different and Opposed ideological Systems, the misunderstanding that arose would appear to have been inevitable. Lglash Of Different Cultures And Concepts of Authority Trevelyan gives a good description of the cultural and social differences in England and America on the eve of the Revolution. .151. English society was then still aristocratic, while American Society was already democratic...In England politics and good society was closed to Puritans, while Puritanism dominated New England and pushed its way thence into all the other colonies; it was Anglicanism that was unfashionable in Massachusetts. English society was Old, elaborate, and artificial, while in America prOperty was still divided with comparative equality, and every likely lad hOped someday to be as well-off as the leading man in the township. In England political Opinion was mainly that of Squires, while in America it was derived 4 from farmers, water-side mobs, and frontiersmen of the forest. Out of these two cultures and societies came two Opposing con- cepts of authority. The American concept, although resting on an English heritage, involved the concept of natural rights, a govern- ment existing solely to protect those rights, a written constitution limiting the powers of such government, and sovereignty residing in the peOple or freemen. Since "George III governed without party, making the Cabinet a mere instrument Of the royal will and Parliament the pensioner of the royal bounty,"49 the rights of his subjects, the constitution and the government were what he conceived and made them to be. The king, him- self, was the sovereign of the peOple. Reconciliation of such widely Opposed concepts of authority was impossible, and action had gone beyond the point of compromise. But even though conflict had already started, the colonists were still reluctant to take the decisive step of declaring their independ- ence. At the moment of need, Thomas Paine, in his pamphlet "Common Sense", supplied the synthesis of American ideology which galvanized American leadership into action and lit the spiritual flame which bore 152. the peOple over the terrible days of a difficult war. Since by its very success we know it was an expression of the dominant segment of American culture and society at that time, we may gain considerable insight into some of our cultural patterns by examining the major tenets of Paine's "Common Sense." Thomas Paine Brings American IdeolOgy Into Synthesis "Society," said Paine, "is produced by our wants and government by our wickedness, the former promotes our happiness positively by uniting our affections, the latter negatively by restraining our vices...Society in every state is a blessing, but government even at its best state is but a necessary evil...."50 We see here the negative ideology Of external authority. Govern- ment, that is to say, external restraint over man, is not desirable, but a necessary evil. Paine explains that when white men first arrived on American soil, they were in a "state of natural liberty. The strength of one man is so unequal to his wants...that he is soon obliged to seek assistance and relief of another, who in his turn requires the same... Necessity...would soon form our newly arrived emigrants into society, the reciprocal blessings of which would supercede, and render the obli- gations of law and government unnecessary...."51 Paine reCOgnized that as society grows and man becomes more inde- Pendent of his neighbors, his self-interest, which formerly led to COOperation, may now lead to injury to others in the community. 153. "....but as nothing but heaven is impregnable to vice, it will unavoidably happen that in prOportion as they surmount the first difficulties of emigration, which bound them together in a common cause, they will begin to relax in their duty and attachment to each other: and this remissness will point out the necessity of establishing some form of government to supply the defect of moral virtue."52 Since man has his viCes, the inability of moral virtue to govern the world makes government necessary. It is simply the least of two evils that man gives up a part of his property to a government as a means of protecting the rest. Security, then, is the design and end 01‘ government, said Paine, security for the protection 0f property, freedom, and the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience. Paine had his own ideas as to the way government should be organized. He first advocated an assembly. chosen from the people, to frame a written constitution to guarantee, implement, and secure the major values of prOperty and freedom. Following his idea of a state 01‘ natural liberty, he based his mode of government on the growth of society and the self-interest of man. So long as the community and colony is small, the habitations of the people near, and the public concerns few and trifling "every man by natural right will have a seat in the first Parliament."53 But when society grows beyond this Original state it becomes more convenient "to leave the legislative part to be managed by a select number, chosen from the whole body, who are supposed ‘0 have the same concerns at stake which those have who appointed them, 154. and who will act in the same manner as the whole body would act were they present."5# To guarantee the latter Paine would hold elections Often and base the number of representatives on the pOpulation. He would have a large number of representatives, advocating at least 310. To insure account- ability he would also divide the duties of election and representation. There should be an annual meeting of the legislature, and only officer of the government would be a President who would be chosen in rotation from among the several colonies. In Paine's theory of government we find that "authority of the citizen" is a natural right, the government is delegated only a very minimum of authority, and every means is exercised to see that that authority is limited and checked so it will remain within the intent 0f the citizenry, and they will be able to exercise and delegate authority in their Own best interests. Most important in this theory is the idea that government is organi- zed to serve the citizen, rather than to exercise authority over him. That amount of authority should be delegated which will most nearly guarantee to the citizen the same blessings that would occur to him were he in a state of natural liberty. After Paine had outlined his the”? of government, he set himself to prove how unnatural, base, selfish and tyrannical the English government was to which the colon- ists had so far submitted, and from which they were reluctant to declare their independence. He begins by condemning the monarchy and the 155. aristocracy. "In the English Constitution we shall find the base remains of two ancient tyrannies,...monarchial tyranny in the person of the King, and...aristocratical tyranny in the persons of the peers. Mankind," continued Paine, "were originally equals in the order of creation," and there is "no truly natural or religious reason" why men should be divided "into Kings and subjects."55 Kings and aristo- crats symbolized loss of freedom to the American, and Paine was playing on this deep emotion. Paine cites Old Testament Scripture to prove that men with an earthly king will forget their true king, God. He equates monarchy with papacy, and declares that original sin and hereditary succession, are parallels. He crowns his argument against hereditary right in kings by saying that nature itself disproves it, else "she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ass for a lion."56 The deep emotions attached to kings and aristocrats are com- Pounded by the unpleasant feelings of guilt attached to original sin, and all heaped upon George III by Paine. Defining the meaning of independence squarely as an issue of authority, Paine says, "...independence means no more than this, whether we shall make our own laws, or whether the King, the greatest enemy this continent hath...shall tell us there shall be no laws but such as I like."57 Thomas Paine had done his work well. His pamphlet "Common Sense" is credited by some with converting Washington to the cause of 156. independence, the creation of enough public Opinion to support a declaration of independence, and the war which leaders realized would follow such a declaration. It would appear that Paine did at least bring together the feelings of the Radical third of the peOple who supported the Revolution, and molded these feelings into a salient ideology which convinced the leaders of the colonies to take the step they had been reluctant to taken-the break from the mother country. Declaration Of Independence-«Symbol Of FreedomL Independence, And Democratic Authority The Declaration of Independence, coming a little over a year after the fighting had started in April, 1775. at Lexington. formally and permanently rejected the EurOpean concept of authority. At the same time it established in our heritage that uniquely American philOSOphy 0f authority based on democratic relationships. This cultural heritage has been deeply planted in the emotions Of Americans, and remains functional in American behavior. SO we may analyze this philOSOphy, let us first quote from the Declaration of Independence itself. When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for One peOple to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the POW“?8 0f the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent reSpect to the Opinions Of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with Certain unalienable rights, that among these are life. liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, 157. governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the peOple to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such princi- ples and organizing its power in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such governmggt, and to provide new guards for their future security. . . " The remainder of the Declaration cites SOme twenty-seven griev- ances against the actions of George III, which are in direct contra- diction to the American theory of authority. Let us analyze, briefly, the meaning, to our culture, of the American concept of authority as embodied in the Declaration of Independence. First, we see that the American concept of authority is based on "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." God's laws, which we see operating in nature, entitle a people to a "separate and equal station" among the powers of the earth. Later, transferring these self-evident truths to the individual, the Declaration states "that all men are created equal" and that their "Creator" has endowed them with "unalienable rights", among which are "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The psych010gy of democratic authority relationships is embodied in the reason for a written declaration 0f independence; "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind" requires such procedure. This 158. is the psycholOgy of "democratic accountability" to the citizenry as authority, in contrast to the actions of kings, who considered their origin divine, and thus not required to account to the peOple, their inferiors, not equals, for their actions. God, say this declaration, has given every man the right to life, freedom, and the "pursuit" of happiness. Since these rights are given by God they are "unalienable"; no mortal, whether king or commoner, nor any government, it is here implied, has the right to withhold these values, including life itself. Indeed, the reason for government is to "secure these rights" to the individual, to make sure they are not taken away or abrOgated by some selfish fellow human being. And to make sure the government does protect these unalienable rights, it should be organized to derive its power from "the consent of the governed," the people. If for any reason a government should refuse to carry out its function of protect- ing the rights of the citizen, it is not only the right, but the duty 01” the people to "alter or abolish" such a government. We see here a clear-cut transferrance of authority from king to Citizen, with a cultural ideology to support it. Individuals were no longer divided into kings and subjects; they were equal in the sight Of God and before the law. The citizen held the power and delegated Not enough authority to government to protect his rights. The gOVern- ment and government officials were to exist solely to serve the citizen, rather than the citizen serving the government. And if government 159. ceased to serve the citizenry, then its authority may be withdrawn and delegated to others. But it is not enough to be able to merely declare an ideology; its efficacy in the crucible of human society will be determined by how well it is carried into social institutions, so that it may be effective in the daily lives of the peOple. Social Change Toward FreedomL Independence, And Democratic Authority Fortunately, leaders of the Revolution had the ability to put their ideolOgy into practice. Even while the Revolution was in prOgress the colonies held conventions, abolished old governments and set up new ones, writing into their constitutions guarantees of man‘s unalienable rights. More important still was the means for all citizens to be in- Cl’dded in the authority structure. By the end of the Revolutionary War the ballot had been freed in Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, GeOrgia and Vermont so that any male taxpayer might vote. The fact that many conservative loyalists left the United States for Canada, the West Indies, and England, after the British lost the war, made it that much easier for those remaining to create a democracy. Nevins and Commager give us a pungent view of American culture at the close of the Revolu- tionary War. "....the homely, hard-working farmers, shop-keepers, and artisans were free to create a civilization after their own hearts. Dignity, leisure, and culture thenceforth counted for less, energy and rude self- assertion for more. The pushing trader and speculator were more 160. prominent in American society. Everybody was counted equal, everybody was in a hurry, and nearly everybody thought more of the dollar."59 The nature of authority is determined not only by government, but by other social institfutions in a society, such as the church, family, organization of the economy, and education. It is the total culture, and the relative influence on man's behavior of the various social institutions in the society, that determines the nature of its authority relationships. Of this we shall have more to say later. It is worthwhile to say here, however, that the reason the EurOpean concept of authority has changed so little is because its social institutions were already so old and so well rooted by the time of the Enlightenment, that change has naturally been slow. On the other hand, the reason the American concept of authority has been realized, has evolved from its EurOpean heritage to a uniquely American cultural form, is because its ideological concept of authority came at the birth of the nation, while the frontier and unlimited living Space gave it room to change and grow, to throw away some of its Old World fetters. During the war and prior to the writing of the Constitution in 1789, many internal reforms were accomplished which served to undergird citizen authority. Governors, and upper houses in the legislatures, were now elected by the people instead of being appointed by the crown. Those three Virginia aristocrats, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, and James Madison, led the fight for civil rights and economic democracy. D11776 entail was abolished, and in 1735 primogeniture also. After mm mu'many of the large Tory estates and the Crown lands were con- fiscahnlahd resold in ordinary sized farms. The established Anglican Canh was also wrecked in most states. North Carolina guaranteed rehfifious freedom in 1776 when it adepted its Constitution. But it was Virghfiaq which, after a fierce struggle in 1736, passed Jefferson's fmmnw bill for religious freedom which later became the COrnerstone forrmmular statutes in other states, and the emperience which lay be- himithat part of the Federal Bill of Rights. Revolutionary leaders also saw that a democracy depends upon mieducated citizenry. Governor George Clinton of New York, Benjami Frmndin, and Thomas Jefferson, in particular, advocated the education Of‘UMecommon man from the very beginning. And the Land Ordinance of IJBSnmde millions of acres of public lands available as a beginning endowment for public schools. American citizens were gainin. increased political and religious fieemmn unlimited land gave them a measure of economic freedom and inmfimndence, and beginnings had been made for educating the common maisoluamight exercise his authority wisely. But even as this new nathuigained its independence, there was evidence that Americans had thrmmxoff one despot only to take unto themselves a new tyranny of thah~own choosing, the tyranny of anarchy and irreSponsible, selfish freedom. 162. Articles Of Confederation--The Social Impotence Of Selfish Freedom The Radical leaders who had succeeded in gaining a Declaration of Independence and in starting the Revolutionary War to secure that independence, were naturally reluctant to grant much authority to a federal government, even of their own choosing. The Articles of Con- federation were their answer to the need for a national government. Reflecting their experience with royal government, and the fact that they had only just declared the sovereignty and authority of the citizen, so long fought for, the Confederation had almost no authority. "The sole organ of government was a one-house Congress in which each state retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence and possessed but one vote. The agreement of nine states was necessary to pass legislation of inportance, and a unanimous vote was required to amend the Articles....Congress might make war or peace, raise an army by reguesting quotas of men from the states, look after Indian affairs, borrow money, and administer a postoffice."6O There was no executive department, and no permanent federal judiciary. The Confederation had no power to regulate commerce between the states, and above all it had no power to levy and collect taxes. The Confederation is a perfect example of the citizenry delegating authority to act in their behalf, without also delegating the means to Carry the action into effect. This, in effect, was no authority at all. About the only authority which the Confederation had was the total in- fluence on public Opinion and behavior embodied in the personalities of 163. the members of the Congress. That this is true is reflected in the conduct of the Revolutionary War. Washington was plagued from the beginning by short enlistments and desertions, and lack of money to secure supplies for his army. He finally succeeded in getting the Congress to approve long-term enlist- ments and court-martial for deserters. But the efficacy of law depends upon the power of enforcement, in turn based upon the sanction of the people. The Congress could not tax, had no money, and so these measures were not enforceable, and of little actual help to Washington. "The whole amount raised for national purposes by state taxation, down to 1784, came to less than six million dollars in specie value, or not quite two dollars per capita...The principal reliance of the United States in fighting the Revolution had to be placed upon paper money."61 Had it not been for the independent efforts of thousands of patriots led by such persons as General Washington, himself, who willingly gave 01" their time and fortunes, and had not the British made so many blunders, it is doubtful if the Americans would have won the war. Certainly it was not won through the action of central authority in the form of a national government . Propertied Classes Want Restrictions On Freedom And Democratic Authority Prior to, and during the war itself, there was a noticeable cleav- age among the American people along social class lines. which has always been reflected in different concepts of authority in American culture. 164. Different social classes had different reasons for supporting the Revolution. "A conservative group composed of wealthy Southern planters and Northern merchants, bankers, lawyers, and speculators sought independ- ence to be free of British mercantilist restrictions and of an intoler- able burden of debt to the mother country. But for the most part they wanted no fundamental social or economic change within the colonies themselves, and the status quo was to be maintained after independence was assured, with political power remaining in the possession of the well born, the educated, and the rich. On the other hand, the yeoman farmers, mechanics, artisans, and small businessmen who made up the radical patriots sought a two-fold revolution. Political ties to England were to be broken merely as a first step towards a revolution at home; and a new democratic government, based upon pOpular rule and responsive to the will of the peOple, was to destroy the social and economic privileges enjoyed by the colonial aristocracy."62 Relationships between the thirteen states had grown steadily verse, and by 1786 the outlook was dark indeed. Pennsylvania and Vermont had been breaking heads over boundary lines, courts in the different states were handing down conflicting decisions, there was no uniform currency, states were erecting tariffs against each other's 3°°dSa and Spain had closed the mouth of the Mississippi so that trade cOuld not leave the nation by that Outlet- But the event which the conservatives were waiting for Came in 165. the form of a farmer's revolt in Massachusetts led by Daniel Shays, a veteran of Bunker Hill. The whole country was in the grips of an economic depression in 1785-86. The major issue was between the debtors and creditors, the haves and have-hots. The debtors wanted paper money and inflation so they could pay their debts; the creditors, of course, were interested in maintaining the value of the currency. The paper- money forces had carried seven state legislatures, but the Constitution of Massachusetts had "special defenses for prOperty in suffrage office- holding qualifications." Its conservative legislature had rejected the paper-money forces and then levied heavy taxes to pay the Revolutionary debt, largely held by wealthy speculators. The farmers revolted. The Confederation government proved powerless to deal with the rebellion, but leaders in Massachusetts itself, using their own money and acting through the Governor, effectively ended the uprising. The conservative middle classes had become very much alarmed at this up- I‘iSing. General Knox wrote George Washington that those in the revolt and others of like views had shocked "every man of principle and prOperty in New England."63 The States had already been meeting to discuss c00peration in trade and commerce; now Alexander Hamilton prOposed a convention to revise the Articles of ConfederatiOn. In May, 1787. the Convention met in Philadelphia to begin its work. The fifty-five delegates to the convention were conservative men of pr0perty. and Radicals were COHSpicuous by their absence. The constitution which the convention 166. wrote was a victory for the prOpertied classes, and met most of their objections to the weak confederation. The Constitution-~Basic Authority Structure Of American Culture According to the Constitution, the Federal government could maintain order and protect prOperty, could maintain an army and navy, coin money, levy taxes and duties, regulate commerce, quell domestic violence. And after John Marshall got through interpreting it, "he had extended the protection of the Constitution to the prOpertied classes and had made of the Supreme Court a bulwark of economic con- servatism."64 The views of the middle classes are equuently expressed by Madison in his Federalist Paper Number Ten. He speaks of an "interested and overbearing majority" deciding issues by their "superior force" rather than "according to the rules of justice." He implies that the interests ofithe creditors being a minority, are trampled upon by the majority, the debtors. "A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of prOperty, or for any other improPer or Wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it...," Madison said. To destroy the rights of preperty is wicked, Madison says here-~human rights are not mentioned. The remedy, continued Madison, for the passion of the majority, a pure democracy, was a republican form of government, which, 0f a federal nature, would by its very size, be difficult to control. 167. And the representatives, elected by the peOple, would be more likely to use wisdom and reason in public affairs than would the masses. The men who framed the Constitution guarded against the "excesses of democracy" by indirect election of the President and Senate, equal representation of large and small states in the Senate, a difficult amending process, an intricate set of checks and balances, and separa— tion of powers. Three of the delegates refused to sign the Constitution, among whom was George Mason, author of the Virginia Declaration of Rights. The Radicals now rallied their forces and succeeded in getting the "Bill of Rights" included as the first ten amendments to the Constitution. With this compromise the Constitution was ratified, becoming the founda- tion for authority structure in American culture and society. Let us see if we can analyze this great cultural instrument in terms of authority. The first thing about the American Constitution is that it is written. It and the earlier constitutions in the colonies and states were the first written constitutions in history. Having had unhappy experience with a constitution that was not "fixed", and which was subject to the vagaries of a Parliament and King, Americans deter- mined that their inalienable rights would be written into the constitu- tion itself. It is significant that the intent of the main body of the constitution was the protection of pr0pert)’: While the Bill Of Rights, to protect life and liberty, came as amendments, a political concession to the common people to gain ratification. The history of the nation ha35npven that the consequences, in the long run, of any cultural imfirummfiq such as the Constitution, depends not only on its intent butaflso on the way it is interpreted. Interpretation depends upon fim mmunant ideolOgy in the culture as reflected by the representa- tivmsof the people in positions of authority. For example, judges ynsuhngtheories of strenuous individualism have read laissez-faire docfidnes into the Fifth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, while it womhiappear the main intent of these amendments is to protect human rihts. On the other hand, with the exception of the period from *O'u>l937, the laws of the land having to do with the civil rela— ficnschthe peOple, have been largely determined by the peOple through fimircflection of a President and Congress in spite of frequent control by power groups. Certainly all social classes wanted authority of the government hmimuito the minimum necessary to preserve freedom and order. The medhngfathers had experienced, in the preceding twenty years, two tymmnimu that of George III, and that of irresponsible, selfish free- dmnunmn'the Articles of Confederation. Their answer was a federal fiflfiflflfll with adequate but limited powers. The ancient fear of $Wemmmnt, the belief that if not limited.it would usurp the liberties 05thegm0ple, coupled with fear of the mass s, led to an elaborate Sfliemofchecks and balances in state and federal government alike. TheSmume was balanced against the House of Representatives. The 7. ,H .. . . mfiCMavngUQlClary, and Congress were balanced against each other. 169. hmualnwetings of the Congress, and frequent elections made the the people's servants accountable to them. Accountability actions of the Journals of both Hou was also provided by publishing ses, the y of a statement of eXpenditures and revenues, rendering by the Treasur and the Report on the State of the Union by the President. enth Amendment which definitely limits the authority It is the T umerated in the Constitution , although delegated by the peOple to that en " has extended the authority of I-iarshall's doctrine of "implied powers the federal government considerablY- ibuting powers between local, Authority was also limited by distr e theory was that only that au thority state, and federal government. Th ld not be exercised effectively in the shmfld.be delegated which cou loud mmmmnity. The significance of the Bill of Rights is that it enbxfies for the individual "freedom from authority", as well as pro- tufiimain the exercise of his authority. There is nothing pertaining tothexesponsible_use g£_freedom, or the responsibility of the citizen ion is granted. Freedom and hority for which protect 1:0 exercise the ant action in other than selfish, per- self-reliance may or may not include SOnal affairs. Chrtainly we can say that Americans revere the Constitution. When at the height of his pOpularity, undertook to gely rebuked by members 0 Franklin D. Roosevelt. f his own Pack the Supreme Court he was sava reverence for the Constitution is because Pmiy. Jessup suggests this r and thus expresses the u' . it ”Mains a principle of self-limiting powe 170. American's bias against all formal government." Jefferson's state- ment that "free government is founded in jealousy, and not in confidence" would seem to sum up the American feelings on authority at the birth of the nation. The struggle for freedom, independence, and democratic authority had just begun, however. Two men, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, epitomize, more than any other, the nature of this eternal struggle. JEFFERSON AND HAMILTON-—THE ETERNAL STRUGGLE The struggles between the masses and the classes over authority Came into full view in the economic depression of 1785-86. It was made a national issue over ratification of the Constitution, has always been, and is today, one of the major issues of American culture and society. Jefferson and Hamilton, in their basic philOSOphieS, personify these two major positions relative to authority. Although historians Portray these two positions as Hamilton being in favor of a strong central government, and Jefferson against it, this is an oversimplifi- cation of the facts and sheds little light on the matter. To understand these two basic positions we must know something of the motives, view 0f man and of society,held by these two men. MEWS Of Man Hamilton, true to his Calvinistic background, viewed man as inately 171. immoral, a sinner. The masses, eSpecially, he believed, were always giving vent to their passions, and no government could have stability if based directly on the actions of the common peOple. Hamilton summed up his view of the common man when he said, "The peOple, your peOple, Sir, is a great beast."67 0n the other hand, Hamilton viewed the rich and the well-born as being above their passions, and more inclined to the use of reason in public affairs. Since law and order are primary requisites of govern- ment, Hamilton said, it follows that the authority and control of government must be in the hands of wealth and good birth. Jefferson, on the other hand, had more faith in the common man than in the aristocracy, whether it be based on wealth or family. "I believe...that morality, compassion, generosity, are inate elements of the human constitution...," he said. Jefferson often Spoke of the "good sense" of the peOple, of "the common sense of mankind in general." Not only did every man "possess the right of self-government," he said, "but there is no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society 69 but: the peOple themselves." Jefferson, from his first hand experience with English and French aristocracy, regarded them as wolves and parasites. He said that "an industrious farmer occupies a more dignified place in the scale of beings... than a lazy lounger, valuing himself on his family, too proud to work..."70 Moreover, his experience had convinced him that the aristocracy SUpporting a King, was less capable of governing than was the collective 172. will of the common man. This he expressed in his first Inaugural "Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the Address: Can he, then, be trusted with the government government of himself. of others? Or have we found angels in the form of Kings to govern him?"71 In a letter to Dupont de Nemours in 1816, Jefferson expresses the difference between his own view of the peOple and that held by the group which Hamilton represented. "We both consider the peOple as our children, and love them with parental affection. But you love them as infants whom you are afraid to trust without nurses; and I as adults whom I freely leave to self government . "72 But it was in their motives, as well, that Hamilton and Jefferson differed in relation to authority. Egydton-sAdvocate or Order And Stability In Society "Hamilton's primary objective, as Secretary of the Treasury, was to make of the new government a powerful instrument for order and Stability...It was Hamilton's plan to secure for the federal government the active support...of the powerful few, merchants, bankers, and specu- lators who made up the creditor classes...."73 To realize his objective, Hamilton funded the national debt and assumed the state debts into the federal financial structure. This pleased the speculators who held national and state paper. He set up a Bank of the United States and established a national mint, which 173. secured the support of moneyed men, since it made all financial trans- actions easier and safer. He argued for tariffs in his Report on Manufacturers, and Congress did pass a low tariff which gave aid to eastern manufacturers. Hamilton's policies "successfully wove an intricate net of profit that secured to the national government the enthusiastic support of wealthy Federalists."74 His objectives may have been order and stability in government, for which he would exclude the masses and rely on the wealthy few; but the "wealthy few", who were his supporters, and formerly wanted order and stability so they could go on with their business of making money in peace, now saw in government a new ally who would channel money directly into their pockets. In this group prOperty rights have always come before human rights: and if they had “1911‘ way, power, control, and authority would be confined to the few who comprise their group. They want freedom for themselves, but for the masses they feel freedom should be restricted. J_‘~°fferson-«Advoeate Of Democragy Jefferson's major motives were freedom for the individual, and democracy resting on as broad a base as possible. These motives were interdependent, for Jefferson believed that only in a broad democracy CQuid man be free, and only by being free and independent could and would maintain democracy. Illuminating as to Jefferson's motives was the fact that in the Declaration of Independence be substituted "the 171+ . as one of man's inalienable pursuit of happiness" for "prOperty", rights. Happiness, whatever that may be, was, according to Jefferson, the chief end of man. Freedom and democracy were merely means to the end, the conditions most conducive to man's happiness. postle of freedom. "He fought for Above all, Jefferson was the a freedom from the British Crown, freedom from church control, freedom from a landed aristocracy, freedom from great inequalities of wealth. He was an egalitarian democrat in ideology. He disliked cities, great and large banking and trading organizations-- "75 they promoted inequality. . . manufacturing int erests , cial reforms which Jefferson spent his life The human rights and so fighting for had as their first purpose enabling the citizen to exercise his authority freely, independently, wisely, and without fear. e represented-—farmers, artisans, Jefferson and the factions h en--were certainly not against property; merchants, and small businessm indeed, they spent a considerable amount of their time trying to make property available to all. That was the meaning of Jefferson's fight in the abolition of entail and primogeniture, and Of his Louisiana roperty was the means to independence and Purchase. But here again. P son believed "that a right to happiness, not the end in itself. Jeffer property is founded in our natural wants. in the means With WhiCh we ts, and the right to what we aCQUire are endowed to satisfy these wan ating the similar rights Of other sensible by those means without viol in economic freedom, that beings,"76 Although Jefferson believed 175. freedom was limited by the rights of others. This constituted one of his most serious objections to wealth being in the hands of the few. In summation, both Hamilton and Jefferson wanted freedom; Hamilton wanted freedom for the wealthy few, so they could accumulate more wealth, and create a government of order and stability. Jefferson wanted freedom for all men, so democracy might live and grow, and happiness be available for all. Both men wanted to advance the interests of prOperty, Hamilton for the few as an end in itself, assuming happiness for all would follow; Jefferson wanted preperty for all so men could be independent in the exercise of their authority, a necessary bulwark of democracy as a condition of happiness. Both men were not adverse to using the powers of Federal govern- ment to advance their major motives; Hamilton of property rights, Jefferson of human rights and happiness. And in the time that has passed since the beginning of the American struggle over authority, both groups have had periods of control which have allowed each to make advances in our societyo That the United States has become a great industrial power, that the men 0f finance and industry have great influence in the government cannot be denied. In this respect Hamilton has been a greater Prophet than Jefferson. At the same time, the authority structure has been continually broadened to include mare and more People, and to make it pOSSible for them to exertise their authority more directllh Other cultural Changes have 176. deterred the American citizen from exercising the authority available to him. Jefferson's Ideology Of Authority Since Jefferson's ideas of democratic authority are deeply em- bedded in American culture, it is desirable that they be quoted here. We think experience has proved it safer, for the mass of individuals composing the society, to reserve to themselves personally the exercise of all rightful powers to which they are competent, and to delegate those to which they are not competent to deputies named, and removable for unfaithful conduct, by themselves immediately. Hence with us, the peOple (by which is meant the mass of individuals composing the society) being competent to judge of the facts occurring in ordinary life, they have retained the functions of judges of facts, under the name of jurors; but being unqualified for the management of affairs requiring intelligence above the common level, yet com- petent judges of human character, they choose, for their manage- ment, representatives, some by themselves immediately, others by electors chosen by themselves. Although Jefferson's synthesis of ideas formed the basic structure of American ideolOgy concerning authority, it was the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828 which brought the common man great progress in the exercise of his authoritY- S UMMARY The seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were periods when freedom, independence, self-reliance and democratic authority took great strides forward in the English-speaking societies of EurOpe and North America. Calvinism was the ideological weapon which the middle class leaders of the commercial revolution in England used so effectively in their rise to power. In little over a century after Calvin had enunciated his doctrines in Geneva, the middle class leaders of England were ready, in the English Civil Wars, to force the issues of freedom of conscience and citizen sovereignty. Out of this period of great social upheaval and ideological ferment came many of the ideas which crossed the Atlantic with the 20,000 Englishmen driven to the shores of America at that time. These were the cultural foundations, which, modified and stamped deeper into American culture by two and a half centuries of frontier living, formed the major basis for the unique character of democratic authority in the United States. It was during the English Civil Wars that king and aristocracy became symbols, to many Englishmen, of a denial of freedom to the 00mmon man. This cultural pattern was, of course, stamped deeper into the culture of Americans during the American Revolutionary period. A reinforcing pattern with its origin in these same sources is the nega- tive feelings which most Americans have toward any Person who acts Superior in any way. 178. The issue of authority was clearly joined in the Second English Civil War. Charles I maintained, even on his death scaffold, that "a subject and a sovereign are clear different things." The Rump Parliament, representing leaders with democratic ideas, prOposed "that the peOple are, under God, the original of all just power." The implications of this position of democratic authority were equality of Opportunity based on talent and ambition, and citizen sovereignty as a natural right based on the laws of God. Also implied were the means to realize these rights: religious and political freedom, re- publican government and universal suffrage. To IOgically justify the sovereignty of the ordinary citizen, English Calvinist leaders had to adopt the concept 0f man's equality, and a government to serve the citizen. These leaders were explicit in these concepts when they said that "Kings are of the same dough as Others....Pe0ple were not made for kings, kings were made for people."78 Thus it was that in little over a century after the birth of Calvinism, its social consequences had resulted in a complete reversal 0f ideological position on authority. Calvin had advocated the com- Plete authority of God, and man's existence solely for the glory of the divine being; temporal rulers, of divine origin as to office, also held divine authority, and logically. in God's labors. peOple existed also for them, through which God was glorified. Leaders of the EnE-s‘lish Revolution completely reversed this position by saying 179. that kings exist for the peOple. This reversal of position came about as middle class leaders, doing, they thought, the will of God in advancing their own economic interests, which required freedom, were able to equate, in the eyes of the peOple, the office of monarch and the personalities of incompetent kings who were attempt- ing to rule the English in the seventeenth century. The rise of the commercial interests to power also meant that the cultural definition of man's relation to God was undergoing change. This change of man's position in relation to God is signifi- cant in that it advances the cultural foundation for the isolation of religion away from man's civic affairs, and the denial of divine sanctions over his economic activity. It is here that materialistic motivations gain ascendance to power. The moral and ethical problems that have grown so rapidly in Portestant cultures as the old religious roots of the culture weakened and died, also find a point of advance- ment in this period of English sociocultural develOpment. "Freeborn John" Lilburne, leader of the English Levellers, and Quaker leaders such as George Fox, were living examples to the ordinary English citizen of individuals who tried to live their creed of free- dom, independence, and equality. In this fashion they were spiritual as well as ideological leaders, and did much to give the common man confidence and spiritual power to carry forward his fight for socio- cultural goals. The ideological leadership of Lilburne extended into the New World, and as many thousand Quakers emigrated to America, 180. they carried on their leadership there in person. Beginning prior to the English Civil Wars, Roger Williams led the first social revolt for freedom and independence in the New World. Dissenting from the authoritarian theocracy of the Massa- chusetts Bay Colony, and sentenced to return to England, Williams traveled into the frontier beyond the jurisdiction of the Colony, and established Providence Plantation in the spring of 1636. There for the first time on American soil religious freedom was established as a natural right, and all family heads were given the franchise. Economic independence in the form of equal grants of land undergirded this political freedom. The early colonial life in America saw the develOpment of three patterns of authority relations which are still important in American culture. These were (1) resistance to any authority or control which did not serve the self-interests of the individual or group (2) the opportunity provided by the frontier, and now by the city, for the individual to escape control in the pursuit of free- dom and (3) the develOpment of the authority of the group, of which committee action is an example. From the beginning colonial life was marked by almost every form of resistance to British "control". Colonists demonstrated again and again that "authority" lay in their own hands as they thwarted courts, royal governors and other officials to protect their own interests. By the time of the American Revolution it had become 181. a patriotic duty to break the English laws and resist British efforts at control. The actual freedom of those living on the edge of the frontier, the c00peration of frontier peOple in house—raising, land clearing and defense against the Indians, plus the many cultural groups which made up the middle colonies especially, were all influences toward freedom and democratic authority. New England Town government and town—meetings played a major role in the develOpment of democratic authority in America in the eighteenth century, and its influence is still deep in our culture. As New Englanders dealt in their own way with their own problems they developed self-reliance, individualism, independence, and a rude equality of public service and privilege. This led to a public Spirit and interest in community affairs which was largely based on the tangible economic advantage which citizens could see in the efficient Operation of their little republic called a "town". As educator of the "New England common man", who carried his culture with him as he led the settlement of the American continent, we may say that the town-meeting of New England was the mother of democratic authority in the United States. It was the American Revolutionary period which placed the indelible stamp of democratic authority on American culture. True, these cultural patterns of freedom, self-reliance, independence and Citizen authority had been develOping ever since the first colonial 182. settlement on the shores of Massachusetts. But it was the Revolu- tion which made these cultural patterns highly emotional in character, with the result that they have been deep in the psychological systems of most Americans ever since. It was also the Declaration of Inde- pendence and the winning of the war that produced the formal break with the Old World concepts of authority and cleared the way for the American leaders to build social institutions which would imple- ment the democratic authority of the ordinary citizen. Many cultural patterns which reinforce dominant cultural values received great strength during the Revolutionary period. The economic restrictions of George III greatly strengthened the pattern of phras- ing economic self-interest in moral terms such as "God-given rights" and "liberty of the individual." This same cultural pattern was Strengthened still more after the war in the struggle between the American debtor and creditor classes. During the Revolutionary period Thomas Paine proclaimed govern- ment as a necessary evil, justifiable only as a protection for free- dom and prOperty. This idea still has great strength in our culture, if one may use the American Press as a reflection of at least one 5eE’D'Iflent of our society. The Declaration of Independence drove into American emotions the attitudes that all men are created equal, that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are God-given, unalienable rights which “0 government can take away. While Jefferson substituted "happineSS" 183. for "prOperty" in the Declaration, insofar as American culture was concerned at the time, prOperty was also considered as an inalien- able right. During the Revolutionary War itself, and in the period follow- ing, rapid social progress was made in the advancement of freedom, independence and democratic authority in American society. Each colony established a new government and wrote constitu— tions which included civil rights. In Pennsylvania, Delaware, North Carolina, Georgia, and Vermont, all male taxpayers received the franchise. Formerly appointed by the Crown, the governors and upper houses of the state legislatures were now elected by the peOple. Religious freedom was established in North Carolina in 1776. Ten years later the Virginia law on religious freedom was passed, later to be used as the model for the federal Bill of Rights. Jefferson, Who had led the fight for religious freedom in Virginia, also struck a blow for economic independence by leading the movement to abolish entail and primogeniture. Entail was abolished in 1776. primogeniture in 1785. Benjamin Franklin, Governor George Clinton, and Thomas Jefferson had also begun to fight to educate the citizen so he could exercise his newly-won authority with intelligence. And in the Ordinance of 1785, Jefferson took a long step in that direction by making millions of acres of public lands available as an endowment to be used to start Public schools and universities. 181+. Expressing the antipathy of Americans toward controls of any kind, American government under the Articles of Confederation was an example of authority without the means to make it effective, the epitome of impotence in the affairs of the nation. Following the Revolutionary War, the debtor classes had gained control of several state legislatures to the disadvantage of the peOple with prOperty. With the advent of Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts, the leaders of the propertied classes in all the states felt the time ripe for a stronger central government. It is significant as to one of the basic characteristics of authority relations in American culture that the first nationwide struggle over authority in American society was a struggle based on economic motives. This struggle came to a focus in the economic depression of 1785-86, and was the maLJ'or motive behind the Constitution written for the new nation by the prOpertied classes to protect preperty and curb the excesses of democracy. As the basic authority structure of the United States, the Constitution, as finally ratified, is contradictory in relation to freedom, independence, and democratic authority. As the main body of the Constitution was written, it was designed to curb the freedom of the common man in relation to prOperty. The Bill of Rights, de- Sié‘nE‘d to protect the rights of humanity rather than preperty, was, nevertheless, negative in relation to freedom. The Federal Bill of Rights establishes man's freedom from authority and control. It is 185. not, in the cultural sense, freedom for positive action toward build— ing a better society in which all citizens may share. The negative character of American freedom is selfish and individualistic; positive freedom is corporate and unselfish in the sense that the major motive behind it is the shared good of all members of society. As it was written, and as it has been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, the Constitution lays powerful sanctions upon preperty and stimulates the economic motive already basic in the culture. Political and religious freedom reinforce and provide the means for economic freedom as the basic motivating force in the culture. The form if; government, which provided a system of checks and balances, separation, limitation, and definition of authority, with the remainder of authority to be retained by the people, was agreed upon by all socio-economic classes. The struggle between the democratic and authoritarian concepts 0f authority in the United States came into the Open in the struggle Over the Constitution. But this was to be an eternal struggle in a society with a culture which has in it so many basic contradictions. The motives and actions of Thomas Jefferson bring to focus the basic American ideolOgical concepts of democratic authority. He had faith in the common man and in his ability to exercise authority wisely. As the foundation upon which citizen authority must rest, for the intelligent exercise of that authority, he wanted a free and responsible press, and education for the common man. 186. Alexander Hamilton, on the other hand, represented the authori- tarian concept of authority. He viewed the common man as a beast subject to his passions and unfit to exercise authority. Hamilton wanted freedom, independence and control limited to the wealthy few, so that stability and order might be achieved in society. Certainly it may be said that the events of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are most important in establishing the character and direction of authority relations in American culture and society. This period saw the majority of Americans complete the ideological break with the Old World authoritarian concept of authority, and the establishment of new social institutions to implement the cultural patterns of democratic authority. The difference and unique- ness of American democratic authority was thus established deep in the culture during this highly emotional period. Unlimited freedom and economic self-interest, two cultural Patterns, incompatible with democracy, both received great impetus during this period, ultimately to result in the decline of freedom itself. But the freedom, independence, and authority of the ordinary Citizen was still advancing at the close of the eighteenth century. Let us turn now to the develOpments Of the nineteenth century, which marks the apex and the beginning of the decline of freedom, independence and democratic authority in the United States. l. 2. 3. 5. 7. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 23. 24. 25. NOTES Trevelyan, George M., England Under The Stuarts, New York: G. P. Putnams Sons, 1925, p. 228 EEEQ'! p. 265 and ’+. MN p. 282 and 6. EHESJ’ p. 289 and 8. ,gpgg., p. 294 Ibid., p. 314 Brockunier, Samuel Hugh, The Irrepressible Democrat-ROger Williams, New York: The Ronald Press Co., 1940, p. V of Fore- word. lgié" Po 72 EEiQo. pp- 58-59 £Eid., p. 62 EEEQ': P- 77 £§id., p. 118 £§£§., pp. 102—103 lbid., p. 116 £2;d., p. 108 EQEQ., pp. 28h-285 Adams, James Truslow, Our Business Civilization, New York: Albert and Charles Boni, 1929, pp. lOB-th and 22. Ibid., p. 1.08 Trevelyan, George M., England Under The Stuarts, G. P. Putnams Sons, New York: 1925, p. 357 Adams, Charles Francis, Three EpiSOdes 0f Massachusetts His tQEXJ Vbl. II, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1894, p. 811 Ibid., p. 816 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 188. Callahan, Ellen Elizabeth, Hadley--A Study Of The Political Development Of A Typical New England Town From the Official Records, 1659-1930, Northampton, Massachusetts: Smith College Studies in History, Vol. XVI, Nos. 1 and 2, OctOber 1930 - January. 1931. pp- 7-8 Ibid. , p. 7 Adams, Charles Francis, Three Episodes of Hassachusetts Histogy, Vol. II, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1894, p. 812 Hosmer, James K., Samuel Adams: The Man Of The Town-Meetigg, Baltimore: Johns HOpkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science, Second Series, IV, April. 1884: PP- 8. 10 Callahan, Ellen Elizabeth, Hadley--A Study Of The Political Development Of A Typical New England Town From The Official Records, 1659-1950, Northampton, Massachusetts: Smith College Studies in History, Vol. XVI, Nos. 1 and 2, October 1930 ‘ January. 1931. no 13 GOuld, John, New England Town Meetings-Safeguard Of Democragy, Brattleboro, Vermont: Stephen Daye Press, l9h0, p. 15 Egii'v P- 11 Adams, Charles Francis, Three Episodes Of Massachusettquistqu, V01. II, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1894, pp- 523-926 Callahan, Ellen Elizabeth, Hadley--A Study Of The Political Qfiyelopment Of A Typical New England Town From The OffiClal EEPOrds, 1659-1930, Northampton, Massachusetts: Smith College Studies In History, Vol. XVI, Nos. 1 and 2, October, 1930 ‘ January. 1931, p. 18 G°uld. John, New England Town I=Ieeting--Safeguard Of Democragl. Brattleboro, Vermont: Stephen Daye PreSS. 1940: PP° 10’ 35 .3251.” P0 36 $££Q-: P0 37 Callahan, Ellen Elizabeth, Hadley-"A Study Of The P8833831— Pfiyelmeent Of A Typical New England Town From.'J.‘he.th College EEEOrds, 1659-1930, Northampton, Massachusetts. Smi 1930 - St“dies in History, Vol. XVI, Nos. 1 and 2s Octobeg, olutions January, 1931, Appendix, Hadley Town Records III, bes 0 Act. Passed‘January 19, 1809, in Protest Against the Em arg 40. 41. 42. 43. 41+. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51 53. 55. 57. 58. 59. Adams, Charles Francis, Three Episodes Of Massachusetts Hist0£y, Vol. II, New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1894, pp. 733, 826, 96 Hesmer, James K., nguel Adams: The Man Of The Town Meetigg, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Pelitical Science, Second Series, IV, April, 1884, pp. 40-49 Ibid., p. 14 Heffner, Richard D.,_A_Documentary History Of The United Statgs, New York: New American Library, 1952, p. 10 Ibid., poll Morison, Samuel Eliot, and Henry Steele Commager, The Growthigf The American Republic, New York: Oxford UniverSity Press, 19) , pp- 36-37 “I— Nevins, Allan, and Henry Steele Commager, The Pocket History_9£ The United States, New York: Pocket Books, 1951. p- 67 __________________ Ibid. , p. 82‘83 Trevelyan, G. M., History Of England, Vol. III, Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Co., 1953, P. 73 Ibid., p. 72 Ibid., p. 66 Paine, Thomas, "Common Sense", in The Life And Works Sftfggzpi Paine, Vol. II, New Rochelle, New York: Thomas Palne a Historical Association, 1925. p. 97 and 52. _Ibig., p. 99 and 54. .Ibid., p. 100 and 56. .gpgg., pp. 103-118 lpgg., p. 140 ° ' d States Heffner, Richard D,, A Documentary History Oflghe Unite 9 New York: The New American Library, 1952! P‘ History Of Nevins, Alan, and Henry Steele Commager, The Pocket . 102 The United States, New York: Pocket Books, 1951: P \ 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 7o. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 190. Heffner, Richard D., A Documentary History Of The United States, New York: The New AmeriCan Library, 1952, p. 18 Nevins, Allan, and Henry Steele Commager, The Pocket HiStOTY Of The United States, New York: Pocket Books, 1951, p- 89 Heffner, Richard D., A Documentary_History Of The United States, lgg_§g§5: The New American Library, 1952, p. 17 Nevins, Allan, and Henry Steele Commager, The Pocket History Of The United States, New York: Pocket Books, 1952, p. 111 Heffner, Richard D., A Documentary History Of The United States, New York: The New American Library, 19529 P- 73 Madison, James, "The Federalist Number Ten", in Heffner, Richard D., A Documentary History Of The United States, New York. The New American Library, 1952, pp. 38-44 Jessup, John Knox, "The American Idea," Life Magazine, 31: 96-100, November 5, 1951 Adams, James Truslow, Our Business Civilization, New York: Albert and Charles Boni, 1929, p. 83 Jefferson, Thomas, Thomas Jefferson On Democracy, SaulSK. Padover, Editor, New York: The New American Library, 1940, p. l 12i9., pp. 162-163 lggg., p. 150 22i399 Po 163 £232}: Po 36 Heffner, Richard D., A Documentary History Of Ehe United States, New York: The New American Library, 1952. P- 3 Ibid. , p. 1+6 ’ Of NeVinS. Allan, and Henry Steele Commager, The Pocketl§;storyg_ The United States, New York: Pocket Books. 1951. p- . P dover Jefferson, Thomas, Thomas Jefferson On Democrag%1 Saui8K a ’ Editor, New York: The New American Library, 19‘t 9 P° Q‘: Do 36 191. 78. Palm, Franklin Charles, Calvinism And The Religious Wars, New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1952, p. 96 CHAPTER V - THE NINETEENTH CENTURY REVOLUTIONARY RISE OF THE COMMON MAN IN THE UNITED STATES JEFFERSON LAYS THE IDEOLOGICAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL FOUNDATIONS The eighteenth century had seen America break with the Old World authoritarian concept of authority and establish a new nation, the United States, based on the concepts of democratic, citizen authority. But the artisans, small farmers and common man Radicals who had done the most to win the Revolutionary War were "on the outside" of the Constitutional Convention when the representatives of "prOperty" wrote the Constitution to curb the excesses of the masses. The common man had won the war only to have his new-won freedom curbed by the powerful minority group of the prOpertied classes. Presidents George Washington and John Adams were able representa- tives of the propertied interests. With the help of the able leader- ship of Alexander Hamilton they established new social institutions, precedents, and cultural patterns which greatly strengthened the central government of the infant republic, and attracted to its support the peOple of wealth. At the same time, a combination of small farmers, states-rights adherents in the South, and the anti-British element had formed under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson to establish the Republican party. Even in the election of 1796, as Washington, re- tiring from the presidency, was able to bestow his great prestige to the favor of the Federalists, John Adams only managed to defeat Jefferson by three electoral votes.1 193. In what Jefferson termed the "Revolution of 1800" he was elected to the presidency, and with this event the freedom of the common man was again rising. It is significant that one of the major issues of the election was the Alien and Sedition Acts which were designed to keep liberal aliens out of the country and curb criticism and Opposi- tion to the Federalist government. Republicans convicted under the Sedition Act were held by Republican leaders to be martyrs to the cause of free speech, and examples of what the peOple could expect with continuance of the Federalist government- In 1800 the United States had slightly over five million inhabi- tants, nine-tenths of whom still lived east of the Appalachian Mountains. Yet it was prOphetic of the future that the new western states of Kentucky and Tennessee voted for Jefferson, and that the frontier people generally voted heavily for him.3 The influence of the frontier in the rise of the common man had already, in 1800, begun to be felt. While Jefferson had already made his major contributions to American culture before he was elected to the presidency, he was greatly influential in the social action which brought the common man to power. He organized the Republican elements into the nation's first political party, the vehicle which the ordinary citizen must have to win victory for his own interests. In his conduct of the presidency, Jefferson instituted "equality of social treatment" to all, regardless of title or rank. This was in contrast to the imita_ tion of British Court procedure which Washington and Adams had used. 194. His conduct in office was an example of simplicity, democratic equality, and a quality of freedom which was in sharp contrast to the preceding Federalist government noted for its restrictions on freedom. When Jefferson purchased the Louisiana Territory from France in 1803 he Opened up the Opportunity for the expansion of the frontier, and with it the continued rise of democratic freedom and authority in the United States. But even though Jefferson understood and believed in the judgment and common sense of ordinary citizens, and thought that, as President, he represented them, he was no advocate of pOpular rule. Jefferson felt that the "natural aristocracy", men of greatest talent, should manage "affairs requiring intelligence above the common level", while the common man's exercise of authority should be confined to the judg- ment of facts and character in the election of their representatives, plus those other affairs "to which they are competent". As one historian aptly puts it, the Jeffersonian's "believed in government if and f_or_ the people, but not necessarily :91 the peOple, and it was not until the age 0f Jackson that equalitarianism became a pervasive theme of American life."l+ It was Jefferson's contribution to lay the ideological and °r8anizationa1 foundations for the rise of the common man. But it was the growth of the frontier, democratic element in the pOpulation, and the leadership of Andrew Jackson which finally brought the ordinary Citizen into the full exercise of democratic authority in American 195. culture and society. As the frontier moved steadily westward, the leavening influence of the independent, free and self-reliant frontiersman rose in the culture and society of the nation. Between 1800 and Jackson's election in 1828, the states of Ohio, Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, Illinois, Alabama, Maine and Missouri had come into the Union. Most of these new states granted manhood suffrage outright, or established qualifications so slight as to amount to the same thing. In the original thirteen states the prOperty qualifications attached to the franchise began to crumble before the pressures of the masses in the growing factory system. Politicians, who saw in the widening of the franchise a chance to advance their own position, led the way in demanding suffrage for all men. By the time of the election in 1828, five of the original thirteen states had abolished all but nominal prOperty qualifications for voting. So that in the majority 0f states the common man had the franchise and also the desire to use it when Jackson ran for president. His election and leadership of the Ordinary citizen into full exercise of individual authority was fore- seen long before it occurred. Another pattern which gave the ordinary citizen more control Over the exercise of his authority was the tendency to make more and more officials subject to the direct will 0f the peOple. By the time Jackson was elected in 1828 only Delaware and South Carolina permitted their legislatures to choose presidential electors; in all other states 196. they were chosen by pOpular vote. Pr0phetic also of cultural change in the expression and phrasing of authority relations in American democratic culture and society was the fact that for the first time, in 1828, "personalities" held the center of the election stage, and ”issues" receded into the background. So long as the peOple of wealth and education had control of affairs it was possible to appeal to issues. That the followers of John Quincy Adams were living in a fool's paradise of the past is evidenced by the way they carried on their campaign in Missouri, the state nearest the frontier in 1828. Meetings of Adams' supporters in Clay and Howard counties in Missouri were said to be attended by "gentlemen who decor- ously and carefully discussed and weighed the issues of the day, and ,,7 who in the end allowed reason to prevail. And a Speaker at a Boon- ville, Missouri meeting of Adams' supporters pictured the administration men as unemotional persons of reason. This speaker went on to say that Adams' peculiar fitness for Office was because he was a man of unusual self control, able to use reason, and "divest himself of pre- judices and partialities and inquire after truth as with a mind previously unoccupied." This was the image which the upper classes of the Northeast carried relative to themselves. They thought of themselves as men of reason who would never allow human emotions to sway their judgment of major issues in community and state as the passions of the masses were wOnt to do. 197. Certainly it is true that the common peOple were avid and passionate supporters of Jackson. In Missouri the ordinary citizen "might honestly doubt the ability and honesty of any candidate who did not support the democratic Jackson against the aristocratic Adams."9 And while reason may be good for analyzing issues, it did not win elections after the masses had gained the franchise, as the Federalists found out. What is apparent to the student of history is that regardless of whether Americans use reason or passion as the tool of social action they usually arrive at the same position-- self-interest. Most significant, also, is the fact that after the masses received the franchise the majority of the electorate did not have education enough to understand some issues. The turning point in the expression and phrasing of authority relations in American culture and society was when sufficient numbers of ordinary citizens received the franchise which enabled them to elect their own candi- dates to office. This meant that they had the power to control whom- ever they elected to office. The phrasing and expression of £1333; authority was bound to be in terms 2321 could understand. Moreover, the character Of authority delegated is bound to reflect the socio- cultural character of the peOple who delegate it. This meant further that the person who best fitted the democratic culture of the frontier would win the trust and vote Of the majority of the electorate. In 1828 that man was Andrew Jackson. Let us describe a few of the cultural Changes relative to freedom, independence, and democratic authority 198. that were established during the Jackson era. THE JACKSONIAN IDEOLOGY OF EI-LOCPATIC CITIZEN AUTHORITY Andrew Jackson had experienced poverty and hardship as a child. As an adult he had had experience in law, business and soldiering on the Western frontier. He was the first "common man" to be President. Jackson brought with him into office "a new equalitarian conception of public office: that all men were essentially of equal talents, that each American of normal intelligence was capable of holding any position in government, and that democracy required a rotation in office to prevent the develOpment of an untouchable and undemocratic political bureaucracy."lo Westerners believed that an upstanding man who could command a militia company, run a plantation, and make a good stump speech was fitted for almost any office.ll They did not believe, moreover, that the rewards of public office should be re- served to those Of good family, wealth, and education. There was 500d evidence on which to base such a belief. Self-made men like Henry Clay and Thomas Hart Benton had been leaders of the Congress. Jackson's own success was further evidence Of the soundness of such a view, and Lincoln's contribution thirty years later confirmed it again. Jackson had a Simple but very effective creed for his times. Briefly, it was faith in the common man, belief in political equality; 199. belief in equal economic Opportunity; hatred of monOpoly, Special privilege, and the intricacies of capitalistic finance.l'2 This equalitarian ideology was expressed in numerous ways. Presidential electors had earlier, in 1804, begun to be chosen by pOpular vote. Direct nominating conventions to choose presidential candidates replaced the Congressional caucus in 1836. The pOpular vote in the Presidential elections rose from 350,000 in 1824 to 2,400,000 votes in 1840, a seven fold increase which represented some pOpulation gain but was mainly due to more peOple having the franchise. Jacksonians also advocated the election of judges rather than their appointment. Not only do we see in these changes the broadening of the authority structure to include a greater number of ordinary citizens, but also the actual participation of ordinary citizens in the exercise of delegated authority in the role of public servants. Direct nominating conventions for presidential candidates and the election of judges also made it possible for the common man to exercise his influence more directly and effectively in those chosen to serve him in public office. Leveling tendencies were also more noticeable in the social life of the nation. Due to the influence of a frontier society manners were becoming more democratic, less formal and punctilious. The person who acter superior was quickly put in his place. And there was less and less difference between the behavior of the masses and the classes . 200. The majority of the peOple not only believed in equality, but "felt equal", as well. This is evidenced by the fact that the Whigs, in the 1840 election, pretended that their candidate, William Henry Harrison, an educated and wealthy man living the life of a country gentleman, was really a tough pioneer who had been raised in a 10g cabin. Progress was also being made to enable the citizen to exercise his authority more wisely. Newspapers were made available at a price the ordinary man could afford. Horace Mann was leading the fight for free public schools. Religion, influenced by a frontier culture, grew most rapidly in those sects which were most democratic-—the Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and Campbellites. Leading authors of the day, such as William Cullen Bryant, Washington Irving, and James Fenimore COOper, contributed literature to the culture which was more democratic in character. Reform movements were started for women's rights and the aboli- tion of slavery which would one day widen the authority structure still more. The common man had come into his own for the first time, and for a brief period he experienced real freedom and independence. PrOgress was being made in American culture toward making authority relationships democratic, not only in ideolOgy but in practice. But the opponents of freedom and democratic authority never stOp fighting, and on the horizon loomed the greatest authority struggle in the history of the nation - the Civil War. 20]. . THE CIVIL ‘u'n’AR - STRUGGLE FOR AUTHORITY Lincoln Defines The War As A Struggle Over Democratic Authority It was Abraham Lincoln, the great commoner, who, in his immortal utterances on the battlefield of Gettysburg, defined the meaning of the Civil War for American culture. On that memorable occasion Lincoln said: "Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the prOposition that all men are created equal. "Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure..."13 Lincoln was merely stating the facts of history in relation to the struggle in which he and the American people were locked. In no other nation of the world, except possibly Switzerland, did the ordinary citizen hold the reins of authority, exercised by the will of the majority, and necessarily resting on a culture of freedom, independence, and equality of individuals. Unfortunately, at the time the Constitution was framed, there was a compromise between the Northern industrial interests and the slaveholding South, the Northern states getting concessions for commerce and industry, and the South being allowed to retain slavery under the sanction of the Constitution. This compromise was possible 202 . mndd allow each to pursue selfish interests in a society of order and stability. George Mason said at the time, that since man lives Lmder a just God, the issue of slavery would rise again to plague the nation. position of majority power in the Federal Government. Under the Qfitation of the abolitionists, the South began to fear that as a SlaWHW'was the foundation of their economic prosperity, and of the Smfifll aSpects of their culture and society. When Southern leaders bemmw convinced that, after Lincoln's election, there was no longer mU'hOpe of maintaining their culture under peaceful and constitutional means, they started the war. EfifiigflflfizfifiiggAuthority vs. Aristocratic Control And Slavegy ‘ s The War was essentially a conflict between two different culture ‘ ' (of amimeieties. "More than three-fourths of the white pOpulatlon ' ~ ' - * tem at theSonth) had no direct interest in the plantation slave sys . . . of alldflfil Twenty—five percent of the families owned the majority ' - - ' hld the thefflaves and also comprised the SOCial aristocracy Wthh e - ' the South domjflantpolitical power of the region. Most people in 203. supported the slave-holding culture, however. As Lincoln said on one occasion, democracy and slavery are incompatible; for if men are equal, and freedom is necessary for man to exercise his democratic authority, there is no justification for one man enslaving another. Only in the culture of an aristo- cracy could slavery be justified, and with it freedom and equality Only for the aristocrats, who, because of their superiority had, they felt, the only right to govern. Power and control in the South at the time of the Civil War was in the hands of the minority. the few; there was no belief in, nor evidence of, the authority 0f Huecommon man exercised in democratic relationships. In the South the culture rested on an economic foundation of COthnh sugar, rice, and slaves. The sociocultural basis of the Nbrth and West, on the other hand, rested on commerce, industry and Small farms. Although many laborers were not economically free and independent, the influence of the frontier had been one of freedom, and most men believed in equality. The Puritan influence in this area also was behind the idea that slavery was morally wrong. While the Operation 0f the authority structure was not perfect by any means With Wealth, power, education and family still playing major roles at least in the New England states, the common man was gaining steadily ' ~. . o 1' ° . tl 1“ “15 freedom and influence, and the majority Old believe PaSSlona e y in democratic authorityo es The Civil War, then, was a struggle between these two cultur 204. and societies; equality and freedom vs. inequality and slavery; cotton, cane, sugar, and free trade, vs. industry, commerce, small farms, and high tariffs; authority in the hands of the common man, exercised by a democratic majority, vs. control in the hands of the aristocracy, exercised by the few, the minority. In the struggle for power, control, and authority, it is only natural that each culture should try to justify its position. As a result, we have, during this period, several definitions of demo- cratic authority, and several examples that power and authority actually does ultimately reside in the people. Early in the struggle tmtween North and South, some thirty years before the war, in fact, SenaUn'Hayne of South Carolina had Spoken out violently against New Ehgland in an attempt to alienate the west from the North. Hayne Spoke in favor of state's rights and nullification of federal legis- lation as the answer, for both West and South, to "Northern tyranny". fligflfifl'Defines The Democratic ConcePt Of Authorigy Daniel Webster, Senator from Massachusetts, and a giant in Congressional leadership, in his reply to Hayne, gives some very excellent discussion on the democratic concept of authority. Webster Said: This leads us to inquire into the origin of this government and the source of its power. Whose agent is it?...It 159 Sir, the PeOple's Constitution, the people's government, made for the peOple, made by the peOple, and answerable to the peOple.. The people of the United States have declared that this Consti— tutiofl Shall be the supreme law. We must either admit the Pr°position or dispute their authorityo 205. Webster went on to say that both national and state governments findve their authority from the peOple, that the powers of the Federal government are defined and limited, with the remaining gmwers belonging to the states or the peOple themselves. Neither emate nor federal government is primary, but each has been delegated chiferent authority by the peOple, and each is supreme in its own area. Tb argue that the states had the right to nullify federal leSiSlation, said Webster, was to advocate a return to the condition that existed under the Articles of Confederation. Webster then tOOK uP the question of who should interpret the power delegated by the People to their government. He continued: Having constituted the government, and declared its powers, the people have further said that, since somebody must decide on the extent of these powers, the government itself shall decide; subject, always, like other pOpular governments, to its responsibility to the peOple. And now, Sir, I repeat, how is it that a state legislature acquires any power to interfere? Who, or what, gives them the right to say to the People, 'We, who are your agents and servants for one Purpose will undertake to decide, that your other agents and servants, appointed by you for another purpose, have trans- cended the authority you gave them!‘ The reply would be, l think, not impertinent: 'Who made you a judge over apgther s Servants? To their own masters they stand or fall.‘ Webster is here saying that not only are the peOple in a democracy the only Ones who may delegate authority, but they are also the only ones who shall ultimately judge whether that authority is being used in their interests or not. All agents and servants Of the people arelflximately reSponsible to their own masters. the peOple, for their authoritYa and no one but the peOple has the right to extend or reduce 206. such authority. That Webster was right in the enunciation of his theory of authority, was demonstrated more than once during the Civil War era, and continues to be demonstrated in our national life. The PeOple Take Authority Into Their Own Hands The peOple, who, rightly enough, had defined the supreme law of the land in the Constitution, had, in the intervening years, experienced changes in their culture which resulted in radically changed views. This was true in both the North and the South. The Constitution, in its "service and labor" clause in Article IV, very definitely protected the institution of slavery. In Article VI it states that "this Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land." Yet, it appeared that the peOple of the North were determined to ultimately destroy slavery, and South Carolina Openly resisted the tariff law of 1832 passed by the United States Congress. When the COngress passed the Fugitive Slave law, the peOple of the North answered by refusing to assist in the capture of slaves. They also develOped an "underground railroad" to help slaves escapes and many times rioted to prevent agents of the federal government from return- ing or capturing slaves. Many Northern states passed "personal liberty laws" which Openly nullified the Fugitive Slave Act. state and local courts, which were subject to the immediate pressure of public opinion, 207 . also openly defied the United States Supreme Court. The peOple, who had originally delegated authority to the Constitution and the Federal Government, now, in both the North and South, withdrew this authority into their own hands, and used it in accordance with their contemporary views. As Lincoln stated in his first inaugural address, if all peOple continued to abide by the National Constitution, "the Union will endure forever." Civil war could not occur under the Constitution. It was when the people of the North and the South took authority into their own hands that war was possible. Lincoln, always sensitive to the will of the peOple, and more aware than most that all power and authority ultimately reside in the peOple, demonstrated, by his behavior, the truth of this fact. More than once he acted beyond his delegated authority, but never did the people refuse, through their congressional representatives, to approve his action. At other times he refused to move when under the greatest of pressure from other government leaders, sensing that the opinion of the peOple would not support the action. In his first Inaugural Address Lincoln showed his awareness of the People's authority. He stated that he would faithfully execute the laws of the Union in all the states "unless my rightful masters, the Anerican people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contraryo"l7 He saw the futility of trying to enforce federal law without the-sanction of the local peOple. 208 . "Where hostility to the United States," he said, "in any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the peOple for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Govern- ment to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices."l8 He rec0gnized also that the Fugitive Slave law could not be enforced because "the moral sense of the peOple imperfectly supports the law itself."19 Ideology Of Democratic Authority Triumphs--Freedom Declines While the issues of the Civil war were many and complex, we may enumerate some of its results in terms of authority. Lee, with his jeweled sword, Grant in his common private's dress, shaking hands at Appomattox, was symbolic of one of the major results of the war. The common man, symbolized by Grant's private's uniform, won, and in so dOing, had maintained his freedom; the aristocracy, symbolized by Lee's jeweled sword,had failed to win control in the nation or in the South, at least temporarily. The rule of the majority, rather than the minority, was also symbolized in the victory. The Union, constitutional government, and separation of powers between Federal and State governments was again supreme. MOSt Of all, the greatest 209. victory was that concept of democratic authority which made the ordinary citizen the sovereign and ruler of his nation, with the power to maintain his freedom, independence, and authority. At the same time, however, we see, stimulated by the war, the triumph of Northern industrialism, which kept itself in power in Washington for another twenty years by waving the "bloody shirt." This was the beginning of the concentration of great wealth and power in the hands of a few families, and with it the beginning of the decline of freedom, independence, and authority of the common man. Urbanization, which followed industrial growth, destroyed man's old social institutions, and changed his mode of living from the rural primary groups to the impersonal, Special self-interest, secondary social institutions of the city. The forms and ideolOgical concepts of democratic authority had triumphed in the war, but the beginning of changes in urban-industrial culture would make it increasingly difficult, socially and psyChOlOgi- Cally, for the ordinary citizen to exercise his authority effectively. "No fair-minded observer could conclude that the war had advanced democracy in any direct or immediate sense.”20 Any immediate gains 01" the war were thrown away by the policies of greed of the victorious Northern industrialists during the period of reconstruction. The Radical Republicans, in contrOl Of a post-war Congress, and in turn controlled by the industrialists, used every means possible to per- Petuate their power in the federal government, in order that 210. manufacturers, railroad builders, and financiers might have policies favorable to their enterprises in the accumulation of wealth.21 The establishment of military administration over southern states, were two of the most obnoxious means of maintaining the power of the North. This use of force, intrigue, and unscrupulous action against the southern peOple, only seemed to drive deeper into their culture the hatred of the North that had been generated by the war itself. These policies of the Union government also made the South into a one-party region under the Democratic banner. And most important, the intense reaction of the Southern peOple to anything Northern only served to convince them that their own culture was, after all, far superior, and as a result it was perpetuated in its entirety wherever possible. The quality of the Northern administration in the conquered South was a great blow to the possibilities for freedom and authority of the common man in that area. The struggle of the South to regain the right to rule themselves brought into bold relief again the power of the peOple locally, and the fact that although they had lost control of their own affairs to the Union administration, authority still rested in the hands of the peOple. Southern leaders, after the war, organized the Ku Klux Klan, which frightened Negroes away from the polls and sent carpetbaggers hurrying back north. Southern peOple regained control of their own pOlitical machinery, and the only way the Northern interests could 2ll. remain in power locally was by the use of federal garrisons. And finally, although four million negroes had been freed from their physical chains, the greed of the Northern leaders bartered away their educational, economic and social develOpment, until they remained, in fact, slaves of a new kind under the control of their old masters. Several decades passed before the negroes and their \ descendants began to exercise their new-won authority and freedom, and this battle is yet far from won. We have now covered over two centuries of American experience. We have mentioned the influence of the frontier in the rise of demo- cratic authority and its foundations of freedom, independence, and self-reliance. But let us now broaden our understanding of democratic authority still further by examining frontier life in a little more detail. THE FRONTIER, FRrJEDOIvI, SELF-RELIANCE, II‘JDEPENDEICCE AND DEMOCRATIC CITIZEN AUTHORITY 23? Frontier Influence On The EuroRean Heritage In the United States of America, the influence of some two and one-half centuries of frontier experience has played a major role in the rise of freedom, independence, self-reliance, and the democratic authority of the ordinary citizen. It was Frederick Jackson Turner who pOinted out to Americans the importance of the frontier in shap- ing American culture and society. In a paper read to one Of the 212. Wofihfls Fair Congresses in Chicago, July 12, 1893, Turner said: American social develOpment has been continually beginning over again on the frontier. This perennial rebirth, this fluidity of American life, this expansion westward with its new Opportunities, its continuous touch with the simplicity of primitive society, furnish the forces dominating American character. Turner argued for the dominant influence of environment in shaping the culture and society of’Americans. Certainly, when we realize that from the time the first English colonies were estab- lished at Jamestown, Massachusetts Bay, and Plymouth, every part Of the United States has been through the frontier process, we begin to visualize the great influence that the frontier has had cm.American culture and society. At the same time, however, we nmst realize that with the exception of the Indians, all Americans are immigrants or descendents of immigrants, some not many genera- tions removed. .Every immigrant brought with him his already estab- lished Old World culture, and it was these cultural patterns, customs, ideas, and beliefs, with which he started life when he reached the emores of America. This culture, which he carried deep in his emotions, could not do other than direct his efforts in his new mndronment. That the frontier environment, and later, the contact muiintermingling of many diverse cultures, has modified the English culture which was first established in America, is very much apparent. While it was, in a sense, mere historical accident that the Emglish established the first permanent settlements on the Atlantic Coast,i¢ was no accident that English culture became dominant in the 213. ‘Mfiied States. As we have already pointed out, the Calvinist Ehritans which settled New England were "men of iron." These "self- mxdddent saints" were sure that God Spoke English, and that he had called them to conquer the American continent in His name. The fact that these diciples of Calvin believed that materialistic success showed that God had elected them to His Kingdom, was also a potent chiving force in an environment of abundance. Thus it was the com- lunation of relentless, militant Calvinism, and the frontier environ- mmnzamenable to its culture, which made it possible for the English Rudtans, the "choice and sifted seed", to sow their culture from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast. Not only were these tight-fisted, individualistic,hard—working, English Puritans first to become estab- lishmiin.New England, but their Yankee descendants were always in the vanguard as the frontier moved westward. With generally the best mhmation in the nation, experience in the self-government of the New England Town, and having been reared in an atmosphere of orators and (fialecticians, these Yankees naturally became leaders in the frontier sefiflements. In the state of Wisconsin, for example, which joined theIhdon in 1848, the majority of political leaders up until the twentieth century were Yankees who had emigrated from New England, sometw'way of New York. As a result, the majority or social institutions first established in Wisconsin were modeled after those in New England.23 While the culture and society in the southeastern part of the 214 . United States has never had much direct influence from New England, there has been some influence, however much modified, through the Calvinistic heritage of the Baptist, Methodist and Presbyterian churches as the dominant religious bodies in that area. We must rec0gnize too, that the Calvinistic influence is not the same in all areas. The further west the frontier moved, the greater the Opportunity for many factors to modify the New England heritage. It is in the western states where environment has had the greatest influence. Yet in Spite of the many modifications of the original Puritan culture, many, and perhaps most, of the main cultural founda- tions have lived on as part of the basic foundation of modern American culture and society. We have already described the New England Town and its concurrent develOpment with the character of the New England peOple. Let us summarize also some of the major facets of the Puritan heritage as it developed in America, so we may have a little fuller understand- ing of these bearers of the New England culture who played such a great role in the building of the United States. _‘l‘_h_e New England Heritage - Calvinistic Puritanism And Town Government We have already outlined the reciprocal relationship that occurred in the develOpment of town—meeting government and the cultural char- acter of New England citizens, as both were subjected to the harsh physical environment of the northeastern part of the American continent. 215. We said that these peOple who were forced to c0pe in their own way with all kinds of problems, develOped exceptional self-reliance, a love of freedom and independence, and equality of civic service and political privilege. These cultural patterns of self—government were primarily based on the motive of economic gain, and rebellion was quick when the citizen felt his rights of liberty and prOperty were being infringed upon. While the majority of English peOple who came to America during the English Civil War period did not become members of the churches, the leaders of the English colonies were Calvinistic Puritans, and all English peOple had been exposed to the ideology of Calvinism. Although perhaps most colonists did not accept the religious theolOgy of Calvinism, its socio-economic doctrines were ideal for the primary economic motives held by many peOple exposed to the great natural wealth of a virgin continent. It was in the sanction of economic activity that Puritanism found its great militant force in America, a cultural pattern that soon led to the dominance of secular interests in the colonies; Not unlike Calvin himself in his Christian Commonwealth at Geneva, the New England Calvinist ministers, while "excoriating the behavior of merchants, laborers, and frontiersmen, they never for a moment condemned merchandising, laboring or expansion of the frontier. They berated the consequences of progress, bUt never Progress; de- plored the effects of trade upon religion, but did not ask men to 216. desist from trading. . ."24 Under the Calvinistic concepts of "election and calling" the accumulation of wealth was a sign of divine blessing. It was the duty of American Christians to vauire prOperty and devote their time to business. Reinforcing the accumulation of prOperty and wealth was the idea that although poverty itself was not a sin, it was caused by sin, and "to accept it voluntarily is utterly repre- hensible."25 Gradually, however, from 1689 onward, the religious spirit becomes less and less "the cause of prosperity, and becomes instead a benediction upon the process, to be prized for the adventitious grace it bestows upon wealth, or for the consolation it extends to poverty..."26 Naturally, since all good Christians must labor in a calling, and the accumulation of wealth involved hard work, pur- poseful activity was a major value, and idleness a sin. Even if a man were wealthy, he must still work. One of the Puritan ministers put it in unmistakeable fashion: "If thou beest a man that lives without a calling, though thou hast two thousands to spend, yet if thou hast no calling, tending to publique good, thou art an uncleane beast."27 This pattern of hard work was further reinforced by the necessity that all must labor to survive and prOgress in a frontier environment. Recreation was to be used only to enable a person to accomplish more work; time became valuable (time is money). In such a social 217. system, where the accumulation of wealth is the service of God, there is no place for sentiment. "You must buy, and trade, and marry, and weep, and care for these things, as if you did not,"28 a New England leader said. Pr0perty naturally became more valuable than human beings, at least human beings not of one's own class or family. Moreover, if man was to spend his life accumulating wealth, he must have the right to keep it. Samuel Willard, in his summa, made this fact plain: "...God has not given possessions to be held in common, but hath appointed that every man should have his share in them, wherein he hold a prOper right in them, and they are his own 29 It was Joseph Moss, a New England Whig, who and not anothers." said he felt that rulers ought to be men of good estate because the poor are "apt to be mean and mercenary Spirits." And because the poor would destroy themselves by slothfulness if left alone, their exploitation by the rich was justified. These ideas were buttressed by Calvin's medieval concept of society, which held that men were placed in unequal status by God, and ought to remain thus. But the ideolOgy of hard work, coupled with abundant American resources, and the idea that wealth is a divine blessing, soon destroyed the fixed SOCial structure. The develOping American Protestant ethic, however, was not entirely a gOSpel of wealth. Ministers of the gospel made it clear that once wealth had been secured, the wealthy should not forget their 218. indebtedness to God for His blessings, and to pay their debt, should "do good works". It was Cotton Mather who said, "Our faith itself will not be found good and profitable if good works do not follow upon it."30 The man of wealth, in exchange for his high estate, must help the poor, try, through beneVOlence, to lift society upward to a higher level, closer to himself. Thus the Protestant ethic in America became "a social gospel; it rec0gnized evils and prOposed to do some- thing about them."31 Bowing to the developing Character of American SOCiety. the Puritan divines advocated secular, voluntary associations for the tasks of social action. The club, the fraternity, the lodge-- associations of all kinds develOped to serve this function. Of course. a Club develOped to serve the poor may also serve its members in other Waysusocially, politically, economically, for example. Government, which, under the founders of the Puritan culture, had been divinely instituted to keep sinful creatures from destroying each other, was soon transformed into an agent 0f prOgress, to be used by the community to attain such ends as were desired. "Government must be suited to the principles of reason, to the nature of man, and the ends of civil societ;y,n§‘2 a New England leader by the name of Pemberton declared. ‘ H " "' d The social goal of "the good, the just, and tne honest, as oeIlne by John Winthrop, was transformed to mere "happiness". And how was ' . The man to know of what happiness consisteth? By the use of reason 219. PMritan clergy were confident that reason would serve "to propagate the piety of the everlasting gospel. Did men act reasonably, they womhilive religiously."33 Men of reason would not sin, would be- lieve the Scriptures, would do good unto others, they believed. But the ministers of the gospel failed to see that the same process of rational thinking, which, to them, could lead nowhere else but to the support of religion, could, in a different frame ofreference, cast doubt on some of the main tenets of Christianity. As a result, since man could now, with the use of reason, determine vmerin his own happiness lay, religion was placed in the position of IHPVing "that the maxims of salvation are also engines of happiness."3Q In this process we see the emergence of the secular society into the dominant position, with religion faced with the necessity for Incving its value and right to exist. This same process of seculari- ufiion meant that Christianity in America became the minion of prOperty, towflflch it must turn for economic support, and that economic activities were now free of effective religious censure. Some leaders espoused religion for its utilitarian qualities, rafiun~than its power to lead the citizen to holiness. "How well cknh it become every rational creature! How useful and serviceable 35 domiit render persons in societies," one New Englander remarked. Thus, religion is advocated for the citizen because it will make hhnnmre acceptable in society, and perhaps give him more prestige With his fellow-men if he is able to exhibit its qualities in an 220. impressive manner. Originally to hear the call of Christ, now to vauire wealth, the individual had a great desire for knowledge. It was Nathaniel Appleton, New England educational leader and clergyman, who advo- cated the original reason for the cultivation of knowledge and wisdom: "If we would be just to ourselves, we must be improving and advancing our rational faculties, by getting a further knowledge of things, especially of God and Christ, and of the way to eternal life..."36 But if man can use education to learn more about God and Christ so can he also use and desire education to help him in his quest for wealth and power. It was felt, in the New England culture, that "everyone has a talent for something, given of God, which he must improve." No one has to be content with his station in life, if he would develOp and improve his talents. Everyone could advance, and advancement meant nmking more money. This was powerful cultural impetus for personal inmrovement, and education was its tool. After secular society had won dominance in New England, the leading clergy acknowledged that man has certain rights, whether he be Christian or not. Cotton Mather, in his clearcut way, voices ins thoughts on these matters: "For every man to worship God accord- ing to his own conviction, is an Essential Right of Humane Nature... A man has a Right unto his Life, his Estate. his Liberty. and his 221 . Family, altho' he should not come up to these and those Blessed Institutions of our Lord."37 We find also in this early New England culture, the pattern for the use of force, whether it be fighting by an individual, or a nation's use of war. Again we find our interpreter in the person of Cotton Mather, who, in trying to justify the loyalty of his colony to William and Mary in the war on the French, said: "Certainly, my countrymen, ’tis time to look about us. We are driven upon a purely defensive war, which we may now make justly offensive to the first aggressors in it. You are fighting that the Churches of God may not be extinguisht..."58 War is permissable if the cause is just, in this case the defense of Protestant Christianity. And the rules governing the use of force are that after the Opponent (the French in this case) strikes the first blow, then one must do everything in his power to win the battle as speedily as possible. Intense activity, hard work, devotion to the practical, the use of reason, the high value placed on education and self improvement, derision for idleness, the urge to make good use of time, recreation condoned only to support work, a government to serve a secular society, the use of war if the cause is just and the Opponent strikes the first blow, a devotion to the basic human rights of life, liberty, property, and family, and happiness defined in material terms-~these were some of the major cultural patterns embodied in the person of the New Englander 222 . and his social institutions. Certainly there was little freedom and independence under the New England theocracy. But within a century after the Puritans landed on New England shores the religious aristocracy had been re- placed by an aristocracy of wealth and prOperty as rulers of the Commonwealth. As we have already pointed out, freedom and independ- ence in the United States have been achieved through secular, not religious institutions, even though Calvinism had in it the ideo- lOgical seeds and social consequences which secular institutions used and fostered to gain freedom. The importance of the New England Puritan culture relative to American freedom, independence, and citizen authority is that it supplied part of the motive power which caused people to strive for freedom. Once the peOple had experienced freedom they were not con- tent with any other social condition. Hard work, education, practicality, and self-government, as they develOped out of Calvinism into secular patterns, were merely supporting means to attain the major goal of economic gain. Besides the socio-economic consequences of Calvinistic Puritanism, it was the modifying influence of the frontier which proved to be the democratizing factor in the develOpment of American culture and society. We find an early example of this in the case of ROger Williams, who traveled beyond the jurisdiction of the Massachusetts 383 C010ny into the frontier where he was actually free, there to 223. establish Providence Plantation; there also, Williams and his followers made freedom a natural right. Rgger Williams Sets The Pattern For Frontier Freedom When Roger Williams left the confines of the Bay Colony and traveled into the free frontier to settle on new land with other peOple who also wanted freedom and independence, he was following a pattern of action that was thereafter followed for two and a half centuries until the last frontier was settled. After the early colonies were established, the frontier settlement process had three initial stages. In the vanguard were the hunters and trappers who were dealing in furs. Following these were the squatters, and some- times outlaws who did not like the social climate of the established communities. These would often move on through to the next frontier when the third group, the permanent settlers, began to arrive. It was this latter group who built the frontier communities. In many respects the cultural develOpment of Providence Plantation was similar to the develOpment of many frontier communities. In Providence, the heads of families, as voters, met regularly to direct the affairs of the colony. In 1640 a committee eleCted by the inhabi- tants drew up a constitution that was ratified by the townsmen. And in 1658 all freeholders were given the franchise.39 'I't'hile the details varied from settlement to settlement, this was the kind of direct democracy and citizen action that occurred in 224. most of the frontier communities. Moreover, the ease of acquiring land bulwarked political and religious freedom with a certain amount of economic independence. The lack of any social controls at the salient edge of the frontier, the established freedom, non-conformity, and the majority rule of self-governing citizen action in the estab- lished communities, fostered a type of democracy that was peculiarly fitted to a frontier environment. This was the type of rugged frontier individualism which would tolerate no other authority than was created chrectly by the peOple themselves. In fact, as president of the Providence colony, Williams had the same difficulty that occurred in many frontier settlements, the re- luctance of citizens to submit to any authority. In 1657 Williams tummoned Catherine Scott, Rebecca Throckmorton, Robert West, and Ann Vfilliams to the court of trials under a presentment as "Common Aposers to all Authority.“+0 One William Harris Openly defied the laws of the colony, and enter trial by the Assembly, went free when evidence against him was lost. like Harris, many frontiersmen wanted freedom from all authority or controls of any kind. A group 0f men, including Williams' son-in-law, formed a group Cfi'vigilantes, and took the law into their own hands to rescue a persxifrom the neighboring Bay Colony.b'l This direct action by cfltizen vigilante groups to establish order, serve justice or self- interest, was a pattern of action that followed the frontier from 225. coast to coast. Let us describe these vigilante groups as an example of the direct exercise of authority by self-reliant, free, and inde- pendent citizens. The Vigilantes As the frontier moved westward there was an absence in the early stages of settlement of any effective form of social controls of a formal nature. To protect life and prOperty, ordinary citizens organi- zed vigilante groups to enforce law and order as the need arose. These groups naturally varied with the character of the people who were in them, and with the purposes for which they were organized. A few examples will serve to describe the character of these vigilante organizations. Following North Carolina precedent, some of the leading citizens 0f Missouri formed a band of "Regulators" in 1815 to try to bring some law and order into the territory. This group was said to include men of unimpeachable character, including members of the legislature and several former Army officers. The purpose 0f the Regulators, more specifically, was "to drive out all counterfeiters, hog stealers, gamblers, and other objectionable persons...“+2 As was often the case in those days, the Regulators soon began to be used fOr selfish purposes. Innocent men were sometimes accused by their enemies and punished by the group in control. Sometimes criminals got into the organization, and some ordinarily 800d men be- came outlaws when they found for the first time a great deal of power 226. at their control ready to advance selfish interests. In 1849 a group of New York rowdies who had just mustered out Cd‘the Army after the Mexican War began to terrorize the peOple of Smifrancisco. This group of outlaws called themselves "The Hounds", and stealing and murder was common with them. Under the leadership cd’Samuel Brannan, who started the first newspaper in San Francisco, four one hundred—man companies of citizens were formed to clean out The Hounds and raise relief for their victims. A citizens' court tried nineteen of the gang, convicted nine men and banished them from the city. Their work done for the time, at least, the PeOple's Court then disbandedf+3 After nearly a hundred persons had been waylaid, robbed, and Slmhlin Montana Territory by a fully organized band of assassins, wmmlantes organized in 1863-64 and caught and hung twenty-four (Esperadoes and murderers in a few weeks. This group of vigilantes xmwer hung an innocent man and after its work was done quietly dis- 1+4 banded. Where officials were helpless or corrupt, law non-existent, jails insecure or non—existent, and criminals were escaping justice for (fiber reasons, citizens had to work together as vigilantes to protect Ihie and prOperty. Often they made their own laws on the spot, caught thalaws, tried them before a Peeple’s Court, and either strung them to finenearest cottonwood or escorted them to the edge of the community multold them never to return. While the PeOple's Courts usually 227. observed the legal forms, mistakes were made and justice sometimes not served. But more times than not their actions were fair and a semblance of order was established for a time in the community. The Committees of Vigilance and the PeOple's Courts marked quite an advance over the feuds and range wars which brought so much vio- lence to many frontier communities. These citizen organizations were Spontaneous expressions of a self-reliant peOple willing and capable of c0ping with their problems in their own way. The verdicts of the PeOple's Courts were usually the embodiment of community judgment. Time after time the majority of citizens in frontier communities demon- strated their support of vigilante action. In many communities order came before law, and as a step in this direction vigilante groups were often forerunners of the established courts. Again we have example after example of free and independent frontier citizens exercising their individual authority directly in informal cooperative action to solve a community problem. These peOple asked for no outside help; they were in the habit of relying on them- selves or the independent action of their own group to solve their own prOblems, and they continued to be effective in doing so. Let us now turn to another form of free and independent citizen authority so important in the culture of the western part of the United States, the government of the mining camps. flinging Camp Demo cracy In the western third of the United States institutional life 228. traces its beginning to the mining camp. It is the coincidence of history that gold was discovered.in California Territory in 18fi8 tmfore the territory west of Missouri, Iowa, and Texas had been settled or organized. In many states of the West, therefore, the search for gold came eastward from California as those resources were soon depleted. Thus it was that the men who had worked out self- gpvernment in the early mining camps of California, took this eXper- ience with them as they moved to new states to search for gold, and once again help to organize mining camp government. The earliest tuning camp, in the majority of cases, was established before there was either territorial or state government. The miners had no choice mn;to organize themselves for protection of life and prOperty. There is a great deal of similarity between the government of the New England Town and the western mining camp. Each camp, like the town, was a little republic, subject to no higher authority than the sense of right and wrong embodied in the citizens who occupied it. In its earliest form, the mining camp was governed by the whole body of ndners in Open assembly,l+7 quite analOgous to the New England town- meeting. But perhaps no greater commentary could be made on the change in American culture over the two centuries since the Massachusetts Bay Cblony had been established, than to compare the origin of these two iflfant republics having so much to do with contemporary American culture anisociety. The New England Town had been established as a community 229. which was most convenient for its inhabitants to get to church. Ikligion played the dominant role in the establishment of the earliest towns, and the meeting house was at its center. Two cen- turies later, the mining camp republics of California were estab- lished by individuals whose common interest was the digging of gold. lflmn these camps were established, the secular, economic interests had been dominant in American culture and society for over a century. The contiguity of miners determined the boundaries of the mining camps and the governmental unit. In 1848, when there were only a few miners in California, there were no organized social controls except whmithe need arose for social action. Anyone who felt he had a.need for the judgment of the community would tell his friends, who would tell others, until the miners of the camp assembled, providing they deemed the cause worthy. If there was a criminal to be tried or a claim to be settled, the assembled miners elected a presiding officer or judge and proceeded to discuss the business at hand. After the discussion, the case was submitted to the entire assembly for a decision viva voce. The chairman then named enough miners to carry Out the decision of the assemblage}+8 As miners increased in number, different forms of government evolved which rested on direct citizen authority. Disputes over Claims usually led to the first citizen action toward organization and regulation of camp life. Just enough social organization was established to enforce the will of the camp as to what was fair and 230. right. Often the presiding officer elected at the first assemblage of the miners remained as head of the camp until there was reason for choice of a new leader. Camp boundaries and size of claims were usually established at one of the first meetings. While the whole body of miners in free assembly, what Charles Howard Shinn termed "the folk-moot of the Sierra" was the original and central institution of mining camp democracy, two other institu- tions served equally as well. One of these institutions was the Committee of Justice, elected by the miners as a more permanent governing body. The third institution was an adaptation of the Spanish alcalde system, democratized under the American cultural influence. The alcalde, or miner's justice of the peace, was elected by the whole body of miners. Since his authority was delegated by them, he was also responsible to, and removable by, the total citizenry 0f the camp. Indicative of the cultural origin of some miners, a town—constable, the same as existed in New England, was sometimes elected to help the alcaldef+9 Behind the elected officers of the camp was always the direct authority of the total assemblage of miners, to prevent unjust and arbitrary decisions, and to remove officials no longer deemed to be serving the interests of the majority. What money was needed for mining camp government was raised by a recording fee on claims, by taking up a collection when money was needed, or by an assessment on each claim. 231. Shinn terms mining camp society a form of "unconscious . . O soc1alism."5 Ownership of claims was equal, taxation was equal, and social status was about as nearly equal as possible to get it in human society. Other characteristics of mining camp society would indicate that it most nearly resembled a frontier, self-governing, independent, and self-supporting republic, based on the undeniable and omnipotent facts of mining camp environment. Ownership of claims of equal size was an attempt at equality of Opportunity to gain wealth, a fOrm of equality which was really based on self-interest. In the settlement of a new nation, the peOple soon discovered that whether the scarce value was land, a mining claim, or the right to vote, its denial to some constituted at least the threat of denial to oneself, when power graduated to a different group. The self-government devised by the miners was just enough, and no more than was needed, to protect each individual in his peaceful pursuit of gold as the road to wealth-- the American definition of success. These miners were careful to re- tain power in their own hands-—the authOrity they delegated was always under constant scrutiny, and was soon withdrawn if they felt their common interests were not being served. Mining camp democracy fitted perfectly the definition of gmvernment enunciated by Thomas Paine three-quarters of a century previously: The wickedness of men made government the necessary choice as the least of two evils to protect prOperty and freedom. 232. Nowhere did man have more freedom and independence than did men on the Western frontier. And nowhere were these privileges valued rune highly, given up more grudgingly, or watched more zealously. Pun had to be self-reliant and solve their own problems in order to survive; there was no one but themselves to turn to for help. Equality was also inherent in the need for individual survival and progress in a.frontier environment. Common interests and exposal to common dangers demanded common protection. But when society became organized, giving man unrestrained freedom to work selfishly for the gain which previously had been partially controlled by the common need for cooperation, then self-interest began to lead to inequality and the decline of independ- ence and freedom. These habits of self—reliance, equality in COOperative effort for individual gain, freedom relinquished only to PFOteCt property, life, and freedom, and the direct exercise of citizen authority in the self- government of the local republic answerable to no higher authority than the citizens themselves~-these were the foundations and patterns of authority which, at mid-nineteenth century, were to be socialized and acculturated into the emotions of the American people for almost another half century. 92stice, Authority And Lawlessness For some two and a half centuries, as the frontier moved westward Americans were in the position of being forced to make their own laws 233. and enforce them to protect life and property. This meant that in a sense justice on the frontier was self-determined, subject, of course, to the culture of the individual or individuals who happened to be making the determination. This pattern of self-determination of justice became established in the earliest colonial experience and stemmed from two factors. The first factor was the clash in interests between the Colonists and the English capitalists who financed the colonies. In the case of the Massachusetts Bay Company, the colonists wanted to govern themselves, their motives being both economic and religious, so they smuggled the colonial charter aboard ship and brought it with them to America. The English financiers who loaned the capital to establish the Bay Colony were interested mainly in profits. This pattern was dominant in all colonies, and was later the basis for a clash of interests between colonists and King. The second factor which made self-determination of justice a mmmhant pattern in American culture was the nature of the salient edge of the frontier with its infant settlements. When Roger Williams traveled beyond the jurisdiction of the Bay Colony to establish Providence Plantation, he and his followers were forced to establish their own laws and social controls. There was no one else to estab- lish them; what law and law enforcement there was could only be established and enforced by the few'settlers who were there. This is the pattern and process that repeated itself over and over again as 234. the frontier advanced. The trappers and squatters who formed the vanguard of the march westward were most always beyond the jurisdiction of any organized form of social controls. They were their own law, and in their dealings with other humans they determined the nature of justice. When the first permanent settlers began to arrive there was still often no law, no courts, no jails, and no law enforcement officers. If crime arose the peOple were faced with the choice of living with it as best they could, or organizing themselves to deal with it as best they knew how, until the settlement had become well enough established to have adequate laws, and courts to enforce them. USually crime had to get rather serious before the settlers would leave their strivings after survival and gain to organize vigilantes to deal with the criminals. It was only after several murders and rObberies that vigilante action took place. This type of citizen justice was prevalent from coast to coast. Even after courts were established, citizens who were in the habit of enforcing justice often took it upon themselves to see that justice was done if they felt the legal authorities could not or would not enforce it. One example of this occurred in San Francisco in 1851. After many murders some two hundred leading citizens formed a Committee of Vigilance. This committee published their constitution and by-laws in the local newspapers. They also called attention to the insecurity 235. ofliie and prOperty, and gave notice that while seeking to sustain the laws, they were prepared to take direct action to punish criminals who had escaped justice through corrupt officials, quibbling Of lawyers, Or insecure jails. After this group of citizens had hanged two men, Judge Alexander Campbell of the Court of Sessions denounced the hangings as inexcusable and impaneled a grand jury to indict the persons responsible. The jury refused to indict anyone. Editors of San Francisco newspapers supported the citizen action, the Herald saying, "Whenever the law becomes an empty name, has not the citizen 51 the right to supply its deficiency." It is evident the peOple were behind their citizen leaders who were attempting to supply the justice mmph the legal bodies had failed to accomplish. Many examples Of this same type of action could be cited. Just as soon as the citizens were convinced that the courts and law enforce- ment officers were meting out justice in service to the community, they disbanded their citizen organizations formed for that purpose. We find also that frontier juries adjusted matters to suit their sense of justice. When the nineteenth century Opened criminal laws were harsh. For perjury and murder, hanging was the penalty required by law. The pillory and stripes were still authorized. When grand juries thought the law was too severe they indicted for manslaughter instead of murder. Often, for the same reason, the Patit jury refused to convict. The average citizen was likely to emphasize a rude 52 justice more than the letter Of the law. 236. Dueling, also, which was continued on the western frontier under a.more informal but nevertheless well understood code, is an example Of the local citizenry sanctioning quick justice Outside the legal forms Of action. Juries seldom convicted the killer in a duel; in fact, his reputation was Often enhanced. In Missouri, in 1824, Opponents Of dueling forced a law through the legislature which made dueling illegal and subject to severe penalties. At the same time, however, legal Officials, members of the legislature, and the governor all refused to Obey the law to prevent dueling. They were aware that it was still sanctioned by the majority Of the peOple, including the state leaders.53 Lynchings in the Southern states are also another form of citizen action which takes the law into the hands of some Of the local peOple. While there is a difference in the lynching group and the committee Of vigilance, there are, nevertheless, some things in common. These we shall discuss in terms of authority and justice. Let us first, however, try tO delineate some Of the cultural foundations on which the American concept Of justice rests. We may recall that when the fathers Of Massachusetts Bay Colony answered the question of what they would do if the King sent them a governor-general, they replied, "We must protect our lawful possessions, if we are able." later, prior to the Revolution, colonial juries refused to COHViCt their neighbors who had filled their purses in violation of the Crown laws. 237. James Madison, in his Federalist Number Ten, states "that measures are tOO often decided, not according to the rules Of justice and the rights Of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." He infers that the decision of the majority is seldom just. In the same era, the debtor classes had taken it upon themselves in several state legislatures to supply their idea of justice in the form of "stay laws", which gave the debtor a chance to retain his prOperty rather than have it taken immediately by the mortgagor. And a modern counterpart Of these same aspects of justice is the conflict between labor and management, both sides holding forth the justice Of their position, and the immoral- ity and injustice Of the other side. The main point here is how the individual defines justice in American culture and society. In relation to prOperty, including civil and criminal cases relating to property, the individual defines justice relative to self-interest. Justice between person and person is based on an informal code which may be called "fair play", as exemplified by the expected code Of behavior of two men on the frontier who had a personal quarrel and decided to shoot it out. With the cultural definition of justice we may also define law- lessness. Lawlessness, in a democratic American culture, may be defined as violation Of the customs and accepted codes Of behavior Of the groups Of which the individual is a voluntary member. It has been painted out by one author that the miners in the western camps 238. "were not a lawless group. Their leadership went with the majority."5 Yet in relation to the laws Of the eastern states, these miners could easily be considered lawless, and Often were branded as such. In the same fashion, the colonists might be considered lawless in relation to the Crown laws, but they seldom violated the authority of the majority Of their own immediate group. The prOpertied classes felt the debtor group were a passionate, lawless group; the debtor classes felt that men Of prOperty were unjust when prices fell and they lost their prOperty to loan agents. It is Obvious that lawless- ness in American culture is determined by whether or not the individual or group feels it has full voice and participation in the making Of the law which is upheld or violated. Social controls which have the sanction Of democratic authority are violated much less Often in American society than are controls pflaced in effect by a power group which has control but little authority. This generalization will hold whether the social controls are in a clique, a community, college class, state, or nation. The violation Of social controls which had not been sanctioned by the local group was not considered a lawless act by frontier citizens. As we have already pointed out, the breaking of the Crown laws by the colonists during the revolutionary period was sanctioned and lauded by the colonists as a patriotic act. Moreover, ever since this period, there has grown a pattern Of American character which may be called re- bellion against any form of‘controle This tendency to rebellion was 239. enhanced by the complete freedom and lack of control experienced by peOple during the long period Of frontier settlement. Rebellion, in fact, is inherent in Protestant culture. Protest- antism originated as a rebellion against the authority of the Catholic Church. Its middle class leaders came to power in the English speak- ing world during the English and American Revolutions, revolutions which were organized and prosecuted by the Calvinistic wing of Protest- antism. It was the self-appointed saints of New England who could own no earthly mortal as master, who gave direction to cultural develOp- ment in the New World, and led the rebellion against Mother England. In the Old World, established social institutions tended tO stifle the Protestant cultural pattern of rebellion; the American frontier made this pattern stronger and drove it deep into American culture. In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson enunciated the preposition that it is not only a right but a duty to rebel against an unjust government. Since the American Revolution, there have been several domestic rebellions. Shay‘s Rebellion in Massachusetts in 1787 closed the courts and brought the state close to Civil War. The Whiskey Rebellion in Pennsylvania in 1794 was Of such character that Washington sent 15,000 federal trOOps to quiet it. There were riots against the Catholics and Irish in New England in 1833-53; against 55 the Mormons in Missouri in 1833. There has been Open warfare between homesteaders and cattlemen, and Open defiance Of federal law; riots between labor and management; the farm mortgage riots led in Iowa in 240. the nineteen thirties by Milo Reno. And, Of course, the greatest rebellion Of all, the South rebelling against the Federal Government, 1Mfl£h led to the Civil War. We have already mentioned the quick rebellion Of the New Englander when he thinks his freedom, independence, and rights are threatened or ignored. On the southern frontier the Scotch-Irish were not only re- bellious, but contentious and quick-tempered besides. These cultural patterns apparently develOped in the long struggle for freedom exper- ienced by these peOple in their homeland, and were carried with them when they came to America. These two main cultural streams on the Northern and Southern frontier played major roles in the develOpment of American character and behavior. The cultural pattern of rebellion was deep in both streams Of culture, was manifest in the personalities 0f the people, who carried it with them as they settled the rest Of the nation. Rebellion, self-determination Of justice, and democratic authority are manifest in American culture in culturally sanctioned feelings of rebellion toward "figures of control" such as the parent, policeman, teacher, and boss. While overt rebellion to these figures Of control is seldom expressed in their presence, the parent may tell his family how he outwitted the traffic COp, the schoolboy boast to his gang how he "foxed the teacher," and the factory worker tell his friends how he'Wold Off the boss." Persons who have the courage to Openly defy these figures of contrOl are given much admiration by their peers and 241. sometimes by superiors. Disobedience, either passive or Open, to figures Of control, is thus culturally sanctioned and socially re- warded in American culture and society. When Americans are told what ggiglthere is often, therefore, a feeling of instant rebellion. This feeling may be covertly concealed and expressed indirectly, or as becomes more frequent, may be Openly expressed. How should we define "figures Of authority," as Opposed to "figures of control?" "Figures of democratic authority" are those leaders who are chosen from the membership by a majority of any group. The teacher, for example, is a figure 0f authority to the middle class power groups in control Of the community who delegated to him the office of teacher. On the other hand, to the lower social classes who had little to say in the selection of the teacher or delegation of his office, the teacher is Often a figure Of control. And to the pupil who finds himself confronted with a person in whose choice he had no part whatsoever, the issue is clear--he is confronted by a figure of control. The three main types of social situations which involve justice, authority, control, and disobedience are (l) consensus, (2) democratic authority, and (3) authoritarian control. In American culture and society it appears that in the majority of cases disobedience to social controls will rise as the social situation varies from consensus to control. It is evident that even in the situation Of democratic authority, 242. the pattern of rebellion in American character coupled with self- determination of justice means that the minority will rebel against the social controls established by the majority. And if the minority is only slightly smaller than the majority, then the struggle for power will make the social situation a very unstable one. We may say also that as the size Of the group increases, the more difficult con- sensus and effective democratic authority becomes. At the same time, however, effective social controls often become increasingly difficult. This has been demonstrated time and time again in the instance of Federal efforts at control being nullified by local action of one kind cn‘another. Thus it was that the free, independent, and self-reliant action of the frontiersman included his own concepts of justice, law- lessness, and authority, concepts now manifest in American culture. Ekonomic Motives And That Of God In Every Man The literature testifies again and again to the dominance of the emonomic motive in frontier society. The rich American continent has healthe perfect environment for the full develOpment of such a motive. 1i appeared to the ordinary citizen in the frontier community that his rise in socio-economic status was limited only by his ability and ambition. People from EurOpe and the settled communities of the eastern United States left family and friends behind to seek the material blessings of tum frontier. Free land and free gold lured many to seek their fortunes amidst great hardships and danger. The Protestant churches sanctioned the accumulation of wealth and accomodated their religious doctrines and organization to a materialistic, frontier society. John Wesley, the father of Methodism, advocated that his followers "gain all they can, save all they can, and give all they can," so they will grow in grace and lay up treasure in heaven.50 Many itinerant preachers, eSpecially the Baptists, had an interest in the vauisition of land which was hardly secondary to I: their religious work.“7 The Presbyterian church liberalized its (alvinistic creed of predestination and election to conform to frontier equalitarianism. Economic motives were basic to the frontier desire for self- ggwernment. For only by governing himself could the frontiersman be smre of freedom to pursue his dominating purpose, the acquisition of wealth.58 Yet side by side in the personalities of frontier peOple with the motive of selfish economic gain, were attitudes expressed as Smuubsity, self-sacrifice, and brotherly love. Exemplary of the type 0fthing that happened over and over again, as well as the types of Cmneeters found in the drama of frontier society, is the portrayal fomuiin Rolvaag's Giants In The Earth. Per Hansa, the main character hithat moving account of life in a Norwegian settlement in North Dmuma Territory, time and again gives help to his neighbors. On one Wxasion he gives a man and his wife enough potatoes to enable them to 2AA. survive the winter. As the final example of sacrifice and love, Per Hansa gives his life for a sick neighbor freezing to death in his attempt to reach a doctor. The same brotherly love and kindness was found side by side with the greedy, selfish search for wealth in the mining camps of the West. Shinn tells of miners giving penniless persons enough gold dust so they could start mining for themselves, of sick miners being cared for by friends, and of miners with broken health being given a home-stake Of 31,000 - $2,000.59 Amidst the rough, hazardous, brawling insecurity of selfish men striving for wealth, there was brotherly love and social security for the unfortunate. Frontier society portrays more vividly than any other this basic contradiction in Calvinistic American culture and society, the contra- diction of the love of God and the brotherhood of man as exemplified in good works, in conflict with the selfish greed of man. For it was in frontier society that the emotions and character of men, under hardships and dangers, were laid bare in their most violent form for all to see. While the origin Of this cultural conflict was Calvinistic, these cultural patterns took on a character under the influence of a frontier environment which is uniquely American. It was the frontier and a Virgin continent which had much to do with the American concept of "success". 245. American Success And Leadership In the Old World success was bounded by social class. The individual, generally Speaking, could rise no further than the upper limits of the class into which he was born. And leadership was most often delegated to persons of high family status, education, and umalth. In America, the Revolution brought a new concept of success based upon the accomplishment, ability, and personal merits of the individual. Leadership at that time went to both the successful and the persons of high social status and wealth. As we have already pointed out, it was not until the election of Jackson in 1828 that the federal government. Huacommon man succeeded to leadership in This marked the triumph of the distinctly American definition of product Of revolt against mumess. It was a definition which was a IMglish culture, a materialistic heritage of Calvinism, a rich virgin unwinent, and the leveling tendencies of a frontier society. The frontier environment was a great leveler; social distinctions affamily, education, and wealth didn't mean much in the uncharted udlderness. The man who could shoot the straightest, stalk game and lmdians, swim rivers, and find his way in the mountains and endless finests or prairies, was the person to whom the authority Of leader- :flup was delegated. Survival depended upon this type 0f leadership :nifrontier days. Status, on the frontier, thus became based on success, muisince survival was the first measure of success in American society, mumess on the frontier was first based upon personal ability. 246. As the older communities develOped, and peOple began to accumulate wealth, it was only natural that the materialistic foundations of the Calvinistic culture should lead to the triumph of the aristocracy of wealth as leaders of the society. We have already pointed out that this victory occurred in less than a century after the Massachusetts Ehy Colony was settled. As the frontier moved westward, personal prowess tended to be replaced by wealth as the major criterion of success. The resources of a rich continent meant that such a cultural concept of success was unusually compatible with the physical environ- nmnt which faced Americans, and this was true until the start of the twentieth century. This American concept of success was sanctioned in a negative way # tw'the Constitution, which prohibits Federal and State governments from granting titles of nobility, and prohibits federal officials from mumpting such distinctions from a foreign government without consent 0f Congress. By the time the territory west of the Mississippi River began to km settled, status based upon wealth had become deep enough in American mflture to provide the major motivation underlying the activities of most Americans. The accumulation of wealth had always been a major motivation for Municans, but social status in colonial times had been partially based See Article I, Sections 9 and 10- 247. With the rise of the common man, who had 4 on family and education. no family status and little education, it was only natural that wealth, which was available to all who wished to work for it, should become more and more the major criterion for success, status, and the leadership to which authority was delegated. Since the leaders acknowledged by the peOple have a great deal to do with guiding the develOpment of cultural patterns, the leaders who have most influenced American culture have been the businessmen successful in accumulating great wealth. The ideals, manners, ways 0f life, and standards of success of these business leaders are those which the mass of Americans, consciously or not, strive to make their own. The business man's standard of values has become that of our general culture. Free and independent men thus develOped a pattern of success unique to their American environment. With success being individual, and based on wealth as the means for acquiring status and the approval of one's fellow men, Americans umre always willing to COOperate if they thought such action would advance their self-interests. yierican Cooperation - Selfish and Social On the frontier the necessities of survival forced man to COOperate ‘fith his neighbors. More than this, man became lonely when living and laboring by himself, and being a social animal, the emotional satis- faction of cooperative action was a motivating factor in such behavior. 248. Emt underneath these environmental factors which influenced the character of American COOperation in the infant society of the frontier is the Calvinistic pattern and motivation of self-interest. It was the character of the frontier, in fact, that forced self- interest in the direction of COOperation. In frontier society the self-interest and social Spirit Of man feund expression in such OOOperative community gatherings as house raisings, log rollings, bee hunts, country court days, quilting bees, political rallies, camp meetings, dances, horse races, election day parades, and public dinners of various kinds. There were also apple boilings, husking bees, bear hunts, deer drives, foot races, and target shooting. Not only were many of these activities social sports and amusements, but work activities of all kinds, through OOOperative effort, became social in character. But Americans were not long in organizing COOperative efforts mmeh were based strictly upon individual economic self-interest. The (mtizen self-government on the frontier is a primary example of coopera- tive efforts to protect individual life and prOperty~ The Vigilantes. law and Order Associations in the Fence Cutters War days, the Claim Amxmiations Of the land hungry squatters--all these and many more smfllorganizations used COOperation to secure mutual self-interests. Farmers societies Of all kinds. labor unions, COrPOFBtiOHS. or theOrganizations which have assumed the name of "COOperatives"--all areeumply organizations to secure for a collective group of 249. individuals benefits which each could never secure alone. Some of the earliest schools on the frontier, before public funds became available, were COOperative enterprises. Settlers donated labor and materials to build and maintain the schoolhouse and its meager furnishings, and the teacher, also a person in the community, gave his services. In the mining camps where individuals were digging for the gold dust which was legal tender in those days, the character of COOpera- tion is most vividly reflected. When needed and not a moment sooner, larger associations were formed to work deep claims and turn river channels. Nowhere in the mines was there any planning ahead; men 61 were too busy, and time too precious for that. One observer noticed a difference in the way Americans and Frenchmen worked their mining claims. The Americans worked alone except when self-interest demanded cooperative efforts. The French, on the other hand, always worked in groups, and appeared to be as much involved in social intercourse as in their work. The variable in this case, is the culture which motivates and directs the activities 0f the human animal. The French Catholic culture is corporate in Organization. It places responsibility for economic subsistence on the group rather than the individual, and success is measured in the social terms of happiness. Cooperative effort in this culture is based on the social attributes of man. The culture Of Protestant Calvinism, on the other hand, places 250. all responsibility on the individual-~for economic subsistence, for success which is based on material wealth, and for the Operation of political and religious activities. Cooperative effort in Protestant American culture is based upon individual self-interest which makes mutual activity necessary. This does not deny the informal groups, and their importance, which are formed in any society by individuals who have a mutual like for each other, and whose ties with such a group are mainly social and psychological. One of the best examples of a truly cooPerative society is that of the Zuni Indians in the southwestern United States. In Zuni society the individual is completely submerged in the group. In contrast to the Protestant American whose life action is concentrated upon the self, the Zuni never thinks of himself as an individual. His thoughts and actions are focused upon his COOperative efforts as a member of a group. The American, on the other hand, learns to cooperate, control his emotions, and associate easily with others be— cause in a culture where egalitarianism is a major value, this is the behavior which brings individual success. Let us remember that COOperation in American culture rests on a foundation of individual self-interest. igcial Democracy And Equalitjg The frontier was the great leveler of American society. Not Only did the frontiersman believe in equality as the foundation upon which self-government and citizen authority must rest as the means for freedom and independence in the pursuit of self-interest, but the frontier made men equal in many reapects. Many peOple shared common dangers, hardships, and the experience of carving a home out of the wilderness. Too, the frontier was largely peOpled with indi- viduals who were dissatisfied with the status structure in the Atlantic Colonies, and their lack of equality of privilege, or they were immigrants from the lower classes of a rigid status structure in EurOpe. Both groups of peOple found in the frontier an Opportunity to throw off their inferior status, and it was this desire to rise above their Old inferiority which often made them passionate defenders 0f equality. The belief that one man was just as good as another had its origin on the frontier. This belief was literally true, for the man of high status, whatever his origin, often proved to be the least qualified to survive under frontier conditions. The abundance of wealth on the new continent, land, gold, and timber, had much to do with social leveling, and provided the econOmic independence which undergirded freedom and equality. While the men (fi'wealth might buy or secure in a political grab thousands or millions 0f acres of land, most any man with ambition could save enough to buy agxmd quarter section, or after 1862 could homestead it. This meant mmw independence, if not economic equality. In the mining camps all men were actually on a level insofar as @fiming an even start in the race for wealth. All began on the same 252. size claim. Of course some claims were much richer than others But certainly at the , 4 start, family, wealth, and social status meant nothing.6 and this initial equality didn't last long. At the same time, persons who were seeking wealth, either in the mines or on the land, were rubbing shoulders together, were by virtue of circumstance, often forced into COOperative endeavors. Servant, aristocrat, farmer, lawyer, merchant, outlaw, miner--all associated together. If you were forced to depend upon a neighbor for help in things you could not do alone, you could not afford to act superior, even if there was a difference in social status orig- inally. Success and the advancement of self-interest in the frontier states depended upon one acting in a manner of equality. After they were organized, the public schools, attended by almost everyone, proved to be great levelers by providing all with a common body of experience and heritage. Together, all of these environmental factors of a physical and social nature meant that "in the West equality was the supreme law and the foundation of the infant society." The major, and Often only social test was that of good conduct. d Individual self-government and citizen authority thus were rein- forced by the social democracy and equality eXperienced in frontier society. Freedom and independence were also buttressed by the belief in equality and these values were enhanced by the practice Of social democracy in community life. 253. The social democracy which develOped in frontier society also had a reciprocal effect upon the major social institutions. Both forces, frontier social institutions and social structure, while in- fluenced by the existing culture, also played a great role in modify- ing that culture. They have had a large role in the develOpment of new cultural patterns as the foundation for modern American culture and society. Let us describe briefly the effect which frontier society had on our major social institutions. Social Institutions Become Democratic In the eastern states, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, many of the schools were private or Operated by the churches. As the frontier moved westward peOple began to establish their own schools, some of a COOperative nature. Frontiersmen often erected a lOg schoolhouse and supplied crude furniture. Some local person would act as teacher for a few weeks in mid-winter when the children were not needed at home. With the rise of Jacksonian democracy, itself a frontier move- ment, came the demand for free public schools. Organized labor and farmers, bent on self-government and now possessed of the franchise, were led by the idealists to demand from the legislators free and equal common schools. Most rapid strides toward this goal were made in the frontier states where there were fewer vested sectarian interests to hamper the action of the government- 254 . The first complete educational system in the United States, from primary school to university, was planned by the Michigan Legislature in 1817. This was twenty years before Michigan became a state, which gives some idea of the frontier influences on the desire for free education. Implementation of this educational system did not come all at once, naturally; the university was not created until 1837, and the agricultural college was not established until 1855. Fifteen years later women were admitted to the univer— sity, completing the democracy of the system. The free men of the frontier were thus foremost in the establish- ment of free education which would help citizens maintain their free- dom and independence and exercise their democratic authority effectively in the art of self~government. Churches, too, were democratized under the influence of frontier society. Camp meetings, a frontier religious institution, brought tOgether all the peOple of the community, rich and poor, old and young, alike, for these meetings were the major means of social intercourse in those days. Churches modified their doctrines and organization until they were acceptable to the frontier people. The attempt to exclude ministers from politics meant that political institutions were largely under the secular, democratic control of the peOple. We have already documented the rise Of democratic self-government. One of the patterns that came out of the New England Town which was strengthened on the frontier was the right of the peOple to instruct 255. their representatives how to vote. This cultural pattern was greatly strengthened by the rise of Jacksonian democracy. Qualifications for public office were also democratized. Formerly wealth, family, and education had played a heavy role in public prefer- ment. Under frontier influence these qualifications for public office were replaced by physical prowess, a practical sense of justice, understanding and favor of the common man, sincerity, and loyalty to the free and democratic frontier culture. Political party organization was broadened and democratized dur- ing the Jacksonian era. Women and unnaturalized citizens were admitted to Jacksonian meetings. In Missouri, the Jacksonians fOrmed a complete party organization with state and district committees, and a "Committee Of Vigilance" to function at the county level.65 This was in great contrast to the caucus method of political organization and procedure common prior to the Jackson era. One of the characteristics of the West was its tendency to form voluntary public associations. When any serious question arose, a public meeting was held...The meetings were sometimes called on county court days and muster days Of the militia.66 Such meetings gave all citizens a chance to participate in the affairs of the community, in the exercise of their authority as free and independent citizens. The family, which had come out of EurOpe as a patriarchal institu- tion, was also democratized under frontier living. Not only did the Pioneer wife bear the children, but she became a true partner in the 256. family life and enterprise, taking her place alongside her husband in most family activities. She was indispensable for desirable family living under frontier conditions.67 During the Civil War women took over men's duties, ran farms, kept the family and business tOgether while the men were away. They also organized Soldier's Aid Societies and helped with the war effort where they could.68 More women took jobs outside the home when labor became scarce during the war, and by 1900 some twenty percent of the wage-earners in industry were women.69 Not only had women earned much social equality, but they were also earning independence and freedom as the industrial revolution prOgressed. The most important cultural pattern to come out of the frontier moulding of social institutions, relative to democratic citizen authority, was local control. Frontier peOple were very jealous of their control and, of course, as they were able to maintain this, they also retained their freedom, independence and self—government. S UMMARY The Opening of the nineteenth century saw the freedom of the common man again on the rise as Thomas Jefferson was elected to the Presidency. PrOphetic of the future, the influence of the frontier had already begun to be felt in 1800 as the Western states and frontier peOple generally voted heavily for Jefferson. Prior to his election as President, Jefferson had already done much to lay the ideological foundations for the rise of the common man. In his election campaign and during his terms of office he did much to build the political organization which the ordinary citizen needed to rise to power. It was the leader- But Jefferson was no advocate of pOpular rule. ship of Andrew Jackson which finally brought the ordinary citizen into the full exercise of his democratic authority as a free and independ- ent individual. Jackson came to power as the inclusion of eight new frontier states into the Union, and the pressure of the factory workers in the original states, gave the majority of male citizens the fran- chise. The Jacksonian campaign in 1828 also marked the first time that "personalities" rather than "issues" held the center of the election stage. The common peOple, frontier farmers and urban factory worKers, did not have enough education to understand some issues. They had faith in Jackson as a leader who understood them and their Problems, and would "drive the money changers from the temple" in Washington. Jackson had a simple but very effective creed for his times. Briefly, it was faith in the common man, belief in political equality; belief in equal economic Opportunity; hatred of monOpoly, Special privilege, and the intricacies of capitalistic finance. This creed was implemented by appointing ordinary citizens to federal offices, and by the reorganization of the nominating and election processes to make candidates directly subject to the will The influence of frontier society promoted leveling of the peOple. Free men were making tendencies in the social life of the nation. over schools and churches to serve their desires and needs. Under Jackson the common man took giant strides forward in the direction of freedom, independence, and self-government. Authority relationships had become more democratic, not only in ideolOgy but in practice. The greatest authority struggle in the history of the nation was the Civil War. As Lincoln stated in his Gettysburg Address, the war was fought to determine if liberty and equality could endure as the cultural foundation of the new nation. While the issues of the Civil War were many and complex, one Of the primary issues was whether social control would reside in the hands of the aristocratic few, as in the South, or whether authority should reside in the ordinary citizen as exercised by the majority. Both the North and the South justified their positions ideo- logically, but the War did not start until the peOple in both areas 259. repudiated part of the authority they had delegated to the federal government under the Constitution. Both sides resisted and thwarted federal action in many ways, and took effective authority into their own hands at the state and local level. Lincoln recognized the power and authority of the local citizen by refusing to enforce federal law without the sanction of the local peOple. He called the peOple his "rightful masters". The Civil War brought contradictory results in relation to the freedom, independence, and democratic authority of the common American citizen. The legal forms and ideological concepts of freedom, independ- ence, and democratic authority had triumphed, and four million slaves had lost their physical chains. But the Northern industrialists had also triumphed, and using the Civil War background to maintain power over the federal government, were able during the next twenty years to consolidate the dominance of business leadership over American culture and society. This beginning of the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few families, and the resultant rise of an urban- industrial culture and society, marked also the beginning of the de- cline 0f freedom, independence, and authority for the common citizen. This period thus marked the develOping influence of two contra- cfictory forces in American society relative to freedom and democratic Numerity. The negative influence is the concentration of wealth amithe rising urban-industrial society; the POSitive influence is the developing frontier. 260. For some two and a half centuries the frontier environment played a direct and major influence on the develOping culture and society of America as the succeeding waves of settlers rolled west- ward across the rich virgin continent. Interacting with the frontier environment was the European cultures embodied in the immigrants who settled the nation. It was the Calvinistic Puritans of New England who have been the major influence on the develOping culture and society of the The restless, individualistic, hard-working Yankee was nation. Since they were also, always in the vanguard of frontier settlement. by virtue of education and civic experience, usually the best quali- fied for leadership, these Yankees were able to exercise great influence in the develOping frontier society- Some of the major cultural patterns and social institutions which the New Englander took west with him were intense activity, hard work, devotion to the practical, the use of reason, the high value placed on education and self improvement, derision for idleness, the urge to make good use of time, recreation condoned only to support work, a government to serve secular society, the use Of war if the cause is Just and the Opponent strikes the first blow, a devotion to the basic human rights of life, liberty, property, family, and happiness de- fined in material terms. The importance of the New England Puritan culture relative to American freedom, independence, and citizen authority is that it 261. supplied, in materialistic self-interest, part of the motive power which caused peOple to strive for freedom, plus the supporting means of education, hard work, and self-government. But it was the modifying influence of the frontier which was the major democratizing factor in the develOpment of freedom, independence, and citizen authority. When Roger Williams left the confines of the Bay Colony and traveled into the free frontier to settle on new land with others who also wanted freedom and independence, he was following a pattern of action that was followed until the frontier was settled. The frontier settlement process had three initial steps. First came the hunters and trappers, second the squatters and outlaws, and finally the permanent settlers who built the frontier communities. The free- dom, non-conformity, and self-government in the frontier communities fostered a type of rugged individualism which would tolerate no other authority than was created directly by the peOple themselves. And some peOple wanted freedom from all authority and controls. The self-reliance of the frontiersman extended into the realm 0f law and order. Often confronted with a complete lack of law, no jails, and helpless or corrupt officials, frontier citizens organized into vigilante groups to protect life and prOperty. dometimes vigil- mnes made their own laws on the Spot, caught outlaws, tried them kmfore a people's court, and executed judgment immediately. Besides mercising self-reliance in the interests of free life and prOperty, this type of citizen action fostered the cultural pattern of ordinary American citizens individually and collectively taking the adminis- tration of justice into their own hands, when they feel that justice and fair play are being denied. In the Western third of the United States, democratic self- government in the early mining camps had wide influence on the rise of freedom, self—reliance, independence, and direct exercise of citizen authority. In its earliest form, the mining camp was governed by the whole body of miners in open assembly, very much like the New England town-meeting. Later, two other types of mining Camp govern- ment were added: the Committee of Justice, and the Spanish Alcalde system, or Miner's justice of the peace, elected by the whole body 0f miners. Living in a state of natural freedom and independence with no one to rely on but themselves, these Western miners delegated just enough authority to ensure a government which would protect them hitheir peaceful pursuit of gold. These frontier habits of self—reliance, equality in COOperative effort for individual gain, freedom relinquished only to protect ImOperty, life and freedom, and the direct exercise of citizen author- ity in the self-government of the local republic answerable to no Emgher authority than the citizens themselves--these were the founda- tions and patterns of authority to be socialized into the emotions 0fAmericans for another half-century. The American concept of justice is important in the way people 263. behave in authority relations. The frontier society did much to influence the cultural definition of justice. As the frontier moved westward, the peOple who were beyond the confines of established communities were forced to make and enforce their own laws. This fact is reSponsible for the American pattern of self-determination of justice, a pattern resting on two and a half centuries of frontier experience. Dueling was a form of social action which attempted in- formal justice under a well understood code, sanctioned and enforced by the local citizenry outside the legal forms of action. Lynching was another example of the peOple taking steps to determine justice. And frontier juries, in line with their concept of justice and fair play, adjusted indictments and jury action to suit the individual case. In relation to prOperty, including civil and criminal cases re- lating to prOperty, the individual American defines justice relative to self-interest. Justice between person and person is based on an informal code which may be called "fair play.” Lawlessness, in democratic American culture, may be defined as violation of the customs and accepted codes of behavior of the groups Of which the individual is a voluntary member. Frontier justice held that violation of social controls outside the local group was not a lawless act unless citizen authority had been delegated. From several sources, among which was the freedom and lack of contrOl experienced by frontier peOple, has come the American personality 261+ 0 pattern of quick rebellion when the individual is "told what to do." In authority relationships with "figures of control", the American motivation of self-interest, served by the self—determination of justice and rebellion in the personality, is likely to assert itself. A "figure of democratic authority", as opposed to "a figure of con- trOl“, is defined as that leader who is chosen from the membership by a majority of any group. With the rich resources of a virgin frontier available to all, the economic motives of Calvinism could not have found an environment more amenable to its develOpment. This was the motive which underlay the desire for freedom, independence, and direct citizen authority. In terrible conflict in the personality of the individual, and in his culture and society, was selfish greed vs. the brotherhood of man resting on the love of God. Under the hardships and dangers of the frOntier these conflicts were laid bare in their most violent forms. Although most were never recorded, the frontier was filled with deeds of selfless heroism and brotherly love. As the basis for the phrasing of authority relations, the American definition of success and leadership underwent great change in frontier society. Success on the frontier was based upon personal prowess, ability, and accomplishment. As the frontier moved westward, personal prowess tended to be replaced by wealth as the major criterion of success. This concept was compatible with a frontier environment where abundant resources made wealth available to all who would work fbr it. Status went with success, and the authority of leadership cwmeto be delegated to those considered successful. Cooperation is often a factor in authority relationships. COOperation, in American culture, as influenced by frontier society, is phrased in terms of self-interest. This is in contrast to Zuni culture, where the authority and interests of the individual are completely submerged in the group. This is the culture of true COOperation. In frontier society there was a strong belief in equality which was enforced by social pressure. This social democracy was part of the foundation for citizen authority exercised as self-government. It was also paramount in the maintenance of freedom and independence. The free men of the frontier, using the self-reliance of their own efforts in the exercise of their citizen authority, molded social institutions to their own liking. Schools, churches, the family, epvernment, and political organization became more democratic and subject to the direct will of the peOple. One of the most important Onltural patterns to come out of the frontier society was local con- trol of social institutions. So long as the citizenry relied on themselves for action, and could maintain collective control of that aetion, they had the means to maintain freedom and democratic inde- pendence. Thus it was the Calvinistic Protestant heritage, in combina. tion with a virgin continent abundant in resources, and the natural freedom of frontier living, which provide the basic foundation for authority relationships in American culture and society. The frontier experience completed and made manifest in social structure and institutions the uniqueness of American democratic authority, a cultural develOpment which had begun during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Out of this same Protestant heritage and frontier experience came the major ideOIOgy of authority; the acceptance of no authority except that created by the peOple themselves. This meant that the individual was established as the primary source of authority in American culture. In frontier society the individual determined and was responsible for his own decisions and behavior. When the in- creasing complexity of society demanded that the individual choose leaders, he organized his authority structure so that leadership re- mained.re5ponsible to his control. To insure individual citizen control of authority, the American devised the multiple authority structure. This is manifest at all levels of social action: from a.small committee to the intricate checks and balances, limitation and separation of powers found in the federal government. At the ideOIOgical level, while seldom recognized as such, the multiple authority structure is an attempt to c0pe with the essential contra- diction of free individualism and equality as major universals of American culture. The major motive behind self-government which manifests individ- ualistic authority has always been materialistic gain. This was 267. phrased as the means to salvation under the New England theocracy, and as the means to "success" after the society became secular in character. While the psychological and social motivations of the individual who had experienced freedom, independence, and the satis- faction of creative self-action were important in frontier society, these motives have lessened with the actual decline of freedom and independence in urban society. Not only were the patterns of authority the product of the Photestant heritage and the frontier environment, but the same may also be said for the major universals of American culture. This means that American culture was well established before the major nfigrations from the Catholic nations of Southern and Central EurOpe reached the United States after the start of the twentieth Century. Thus, even the Catholic immigrant, if he wanted to be a success in American terms, was forced to conform to some American cultural patterns after he arrived here. It is significant that most Catholic immigrants settled in the