Founders History: John Dickinson and Choosing Principles Over Public Opinion
History Can Be Unkind When You Go Against The Grain Like Dickinson
A free people therefore can never be too quick in observing, nor too firm in opposing the beginnings of alteration either in form or reality, respecting institutions formed for their security…the forms of liberty may be retained, when the substance is gone.
John Dickinson
Letters From a Farmer In Pennsylvania
I wrote this month’s Founder’s History on December 2nd, the day that John Dickinson published the first of his hugely influential and popular essays “Letters From A Farmer In Pennsylvania” on the same day of December 2nd 1767. Like many at the time, he published anonymously to protect himself and to be able to express criticism of society, the British monarchy and Parliament more freely. “Letters” was a clear, masterful summation of the transgressions that Parliament committed against the colonies. The essays’ clarity galvanized the colonists thinking about the loss of liberty and unjust burden of taxes. Once known as the author, it earned Dickinson the reputation of the “Penman of the Revolution”.
As we’ll see, Dickinson’s commitment to his principles earned him praise, as well much derision when tides turned. But he had strength that many misjudged. His instinct and intellect served as a warning signal for many.
But people are fickle and history can be unkind. Dickinson earned a reputation as a fervent supporter of rights and natural law yet urged peaceful protest and civil disobedience when resisting the tyranny of government. He was known for seeking balance, and was against mob rule. Despite his writing and work to bring the colonists together and urging them to understand how their rights were trampled, Dickinson was victim of his scruples at the wrong point in time, and his strengths were mismatched with what was needed in 1776.
He opposed the Declaration of Independence.
This earned him the ire of John Adams and many others. Adams called him a “piddling Genius”
I admit my knowledge of history is not the best, and that’s why I want to learn and share. It’s the reason for Founders History. My impression of Dickinson was mostly from unkind historians or worse, from the HBO series “John Adams” where Dickinson is portrayed as a timid, unhealthy man.
While he had health issues, he was a badass. He fought in the militia, something that few of the delegates to the Continental Congress did. At the time the British considered him to be The Ruler of America, and targeted him in Philadelphia, burning his estate to the ground. He fought as a private, refused the rank of general. Dickinson led the First Battalion Troops in Philadelphia, served Washington in the Flying Camp in New Jersey, and re-enlisted to fight in Delaware.
Badass.
This month’s Founders History will try to give him the credit he deserves. He shaped the thinking of the time leading up to the Revolution and helped deliver the Constitution to our Country.
John Dickinson Background and Timeline
This timeline is not exhaustive, and includes the highlights of what I think is important to understanding Dickinson’s contributions. It’s an attempt to demonstrate the influence that this talented man had.
Dickinson was born in Maryland to a well established family who owned a plantation. His father was a lawyer, and Dickinson would follow his father’s path. For their time, the Dickinsons were well off, yet John Dickinson was home schooled. He received what was considered a classic education which featured mathematics, ancient history with a focus on Greek and Roman societies, Latin, philosophy, rhetoric and ancient Greek and Roman forms of government.
Like many of the Founding Fathers, Dickinson had a zeal for self directed learning and developed a great interest in British history. This self guided quest for knowledge would continue during his time at law school. When he was of the proper age, his father sent him to England at Middle Temple to study law, and there Dickinson continued his interests in British history. Dickinson was also noted for his work ethic with respect to his studies. Perhaps coming from the colonies to England where all the history transpired he had read about filled him with the respect for English law that he would profess in later years.
This is an important point, because later when Dickinson felt compelled to argue for the rights that he felt proud that his heritage provided, he would go to great lengths to cite examples from English history and history of law. These histories were not remote and abstract to him - he could communicate their importance and impact in many ways, making him an extremely skilled speaker.
Once Dickinson passed the bar in London he returned to practice law in Philadelphia, then within 2 years launched his career in politics in Delaware, eventually becoming Speaker of the Delaware Assembly. His next achievement was being elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1762. There he would meet and ultimately oppose Ben Franklin.
1764: Opposing the Popular Ben Franklin
Pennsylvania was chartered as a proprietorship to the Penn family in 1701. This meant that it was not a royal colony, but was controlled by the Penn family, who as absentee proprietors, appointed a governor and only provided the Assembly with discretionary funds. Pennsylvania had a special status, as it and Delaware were under the same governor yet had separate legislatures.
In 1764 the Pennsylvanians felt that they would gain more freedom and be able to win the graces of the King. Becoming a colony and dissolving the Pennsylvania charter would achieve that additional freedom, and gain additional funds for the Assembly.
That year Franklin was elected unanimously as Speaker to the Assembly, and immediately signed a petition to submit to King George requesting Pennsylvania be made a royal colony.
Dickinson opposed the idea, and the popular Ben Franklin. Here Dickinson demonstrated his caution as well as his deep knowledge of British history. Monarchs were not immune to corruption, nor were legislators. Dissolving the current charter would open up Pennsylvania to potentially losing the religious freedoms that were, at the time, guaranteed in the original charter. Dickinson had a cautious nature, and his instinct was to preserve balance, and seek potential reform under the current system. There was no guarantee that those religious freedoms would remain without the charter. It was better to retain and endure, than to risk and lose. Nothing would guarantee that under the King and direct control of Parliament that circumstance would be better.
This made Dickinson very unpopular, but he stuck to his principles. Eventually many would come to reason as he, and Franklin was eventually defeated, losing his seat in the Assembly. Dickinson was proven correct regarding the capricious nature of Parliament and the King when the Stamp Act of 1765 was passed, and fulfilling Dickinson’s fears by imposing taxes and eliminating the colonists’ rights.
1765: Resolution to Stamp Act
From 1756 to 1763 Britain fought France in Seven Years War, or as we call it the French and Indian War. This conflicted was waged in both in Europe and in North America. Though the conflict ended in 1763, approximately 10,000 British troops remained in the colonies to provide protection. Britain faced financial trouble and hoped to receive money from the colonists to pay for the troops, and cover England’s war debts as well.
The Stamp Act of 1765 was the first direct tax imposed by Parliament on the American colonies. All documents, whether legal, playing cards, postal letters, were required to have a stamp that was to be acquired from official commissioned distributors. Given that very little paper was produced in the colonies and had to be purchased from Britain, the colonists had no recourse. They paid the prices that the paper distributors demanded, and then a required tax.
In prior years Parliament had regulated trade with taxes, but never levied taxes directly. They did not have the authority, as by English law, taxes could not be mandated unless those taxed had a say in its provisions. The colonists had no representation at Parliament, nor were they consulted.
Dickinson and other colonial representatives formed the Stamp Act Congress in response to the new taxation. This meeting of legislatures presaged the First Continental Congress that was formed in 1774, but this first meeting did not yet contain the fire of rebellion and independence. At least not yet.
At the time, the governors of the colonies were appointed by the Crown, and many governors sought to prevent legislatures from convening to organize and select delegates to attend the Stamp Act Congress. The governors also sought to quell protests against the act, as it affected all businesses in the colonies.
During this time Dickinson demonstrated great skill in crafting a counter argument for the Stamp Act. After reviewing all acts passed by Parliament to regulate the colonies, he noted that all taxes were related to trade, or what was termed an external tax. In his survey he discovered that the taxes were levied with the purpose of regulating trade instead of directly deriving profit. In other words the goals of the taxes prior to the Stamp Act were to maintain trade practices considered healthy for Britain’s economy. This new Stamp Act taxed the colonists directly. This was considered an “internal” tax. Traditionally only those bodies composed of representatives of British citizens could levy taxes, as those affected had a hand in crafting the parameters of the tax. In the case of the Stamp Act, the colonists had no representatives in Parliament. To impose a tax would run contrary to centuries of law that honored British citizens rights in England itself.
This was ignored outright with respect to the colonies.
Dickinson wrote the Declaration of Rights and Grievances as a petition to King George. This type of thinking is typical Dickinson and demonstrative of the classical education and training he had.
Attack the foundation of an argument or point, and if there is a flaw at a foundational level, the entire argument crumbles.
The ability to frame the key issues in common terms was one Dickinson’s key strengths, and vital to coalescing the colonists in a more unified manner. It also made him a de facto leader of colonial opposition. During this period opposition to “innovations” by monarchs and bureaucrats were typically expressed in terms of preserving a stable order. In other words, if a new law disturbed this tradition, it was considered a violation of a pact between rulers and subjects.
The ideals expressed in the 14 points became the foundation of the argument that as British citizens, the colonists had rights, and that they recognized that British law was in their favor. This reflects Dickinson’s ideals of balance of government. While he advocated for resistance to these violations of the law, he clearly felt that the law itself was the key to achieving justice and resolution. If the goals of the British government were to protect property, and the colonists were British citizens, then they could not be taxed without participating in a legislative process, as was the right of all citizens. According to law, only the colonial legislatures could tax the colonists directly.
1st. That his majesty's subjects in these colonies, owe the same allegiance to the crown of Great Britain that is owing from his subjects born within the realm, and all due subordination to that august body, the parliament of Great Britain.
2d. That his majesty's liege subjects in these colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and privileges of his natural born subjects within the kingdom of Great Britain.
…
Lastly, That it is the indispensable duty of these colonies to the best of sovereigns, to the mother country, and to themselves, to endeavor, by a loyal and dutiful address to his majesty, and humble application to both houses of parliament, to procure the repeal of the act for granting and applying certain stamp duties, of all clauses of any other acts of parliament, whereby the jurisdiction of the admiralty is extended as aforesaid, and of the other late acts for the restriction of the American commerce.
Note that these points are not only an appeal to the existing authority that the monarch had, but as steward to a healthy society. This is similar to the concepts described by Reverend Jonathon Mayhew, who maintained that resistance to lawlessness required Christian’s to act. You can read about that here:
The Declaration was submitted to King George directly, the first petition ever sent from a governing body of the colonies to the monarch.
The Stamp Act was repealed, but as we know this was not the end of the conflict. While the colonists felt they achieved a victory, it was only a brief reprieve. As the saying goes “it only gets worse”. Circumstances would require Dickinson to again lead and provide insight as he galvanized the colonies thinking for their own defense.
The Declaration was submitted to King George directly, the first petition ever sent from a governing body of the colonies to the monarch.
The Stamp Act was repealed, but as we know this was not the end. While the colonists felt they achieved a victory, it was only a brief reprieve. As the saying goes “it only gets worse”. Circumstances would require Dickinson to again lead and provide insight and galvanize the colonies.
1767: Awakening People with Letters From A Farmer In Pennsylvania
Parliament and King George didn’t wait long to get their tax money, so if there weren’t laws to that end, well laws could be made. Three acts were passed that were far worse than the Stamp Act. The Quartering Act, the Townshend Duties, and the Declaratory Act were the response. They were worse than the Stamp Act.
The Quartering Act required the colonists to tax themselves in order to support British troops stationed in the colonies for their protection. You have to admit that this is a bit ironic and funny - “We can’t tax you, but we order you to tax yourselves and send us the proceeds.” I am grinning while writing this description.
The Townsend Acts imposed duty tax on 5 imported necessities of X At this time the colonies were restricted from producing their own iron, steel, paper etc.
The Declaratory Act was the final straw, as Parliament granted itself the power to legislate for the colonies in all cases. In some ways this is similar to using the Supremacy Clause to justify the Alien and Sedition Acts. You’ll find that discussion here:
The New York legislature faced a short fall in funds, and could not pay the Quartering Act tax. Parliament order the legislature close until they found the funds.
At first the colonies were not aware of their impact, and Dickinson took to writing “Letters” to explain. There 12 installments of the Letters published in a weekly newspaper, the Pennsylvania Chronicle and Universal Advertiser of Philadelphia. They became the rallying cry to resist and described the tyranny of Parliament's actions.
The first letter was a wake up call, urging the colonies to recognize what was upon them. If they thought the Stamp Act was bad, then they were not paying attention.
With a good deal of surprize I have observed, that little notice has been taken of an act of parliament, as injurious in its principle to the liberties of these colonies, as the Stamp-Act was: I mean the act for suspending the legislation of New-York.
In the second letter Dickinson described how he came to the conclusion that Parliament could regulate yet not tax directly.
I have looked over every statute relating to these colonies, from their first settlement to this time; and I find every one of them founded on this principle, till the Stamp-Act administration[1]. All before, are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between the several constituent parts of the empire; and though many of them imposed duties on trade, yet those duties were always imposed with design to restrain the commerce of one part, that was injurious to another, and thus to promote the general welfare.
In his third letter Dickinson emphasized that he thought there was a peaceful resolution to the grievances, and that was the recourse that should be achieved.
The meaning of them is, to convince the people of these colonies, that they are at this moment exposed to the most imminent dangers; and to persuade them immediately, vigorously, and unanimously, to exert themselves, in the firm, but most peaceable manner, for obtaining relief.
A summary of the Letters can be found here. https://allthingsliberty.com/2024/04/john-dickinson-and-his-letters/
Ben Franklin published Dickinson’s work in London and Paris. This elevated Dickson to nearly the same level of notoriety as Franklin himself. It also marked Dickinson as the leading voice of the colonies. Later this would place him in the cross hairs of the British, who would target him specifically as the leader of colonial rebellion.
The Letters were immensely popular as they captured the emotional nature of the colonists' arguments at the time and communicated them in a manner that Parliament would understand, and given the authority and command that Dickinson demonstrated regarding British law, Parliament should have respected the message from fellow British citizens. But this is where Dickinson misjudged his British counterparts.
Misjudging The Need For a Declaration of Independence?
As we know, relations deteriorated rapidly as the British continued to place a chokehold on the colonists economically, and finally would usurp all rights. In 1774 the First Continental Congress was formed to pool ideas and resources on how to deal with the escalating situation with England, and as a response to the closing of Boston Harbor and rescinded the Massachusetts charter.
The Battles of Concord and Lexington in 1775 signaled the intent of the British to treat the colonists like a conquered people, not as British subjects with rights. Dickinson teamed up with Thomas Jefferson to write the The Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, where the right for the colonists to defend themselves was laid out in terms that presaged the Declaration of Independence.
Parliament adopted an insidious manoeuvre calculated to divide us, to establish a perpetual auction of taxations where colony should bid against colony, all of them uninformed what ransom would redeem their lives; and thus to extort from us, at the point of the bayonet, the unknown sums that should be sufficient to gratify, if possible to gratify, ministerial rapacity, with the miserable indulgence left to us of raising, in our own mode, the prescribed tribute.
The petition does reflect the different stages in both Jefferson and Dickinson’s thinking, and it is here that the appeal is made to King George that the colonies were defending themselves as British citizens who had no designs of breaking free from King George’s rule.
Lest this declaration should disquiet the minds of our friends and fellow-subjects in any part of the empire, we assure them that we mean not to dissolve that Union which has so long and so happily subsisted between us, and which we sincerely wish to see restored.-Necessity has not yet driven us into that desperate measure, or induced us to excite any other nation to war against them.-We have not raised armies with ambitious designs of separating from Great Britain, and establishing independent states.
Dickinson is known for his caution, and at this stage other delegates such as John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Jefferson saw the writing on the wall with respect to any type of reconciliation. Adhering to principle over popularity, Dickinson remained against declaring independence, feeling that the colonies were unprepared. Clearly they would need support from foreign nations, as they had very little military might to go up against the British Empire, a world superpower at that time. His instinct to seek balance and avoid violence was not attuned with the times. He abstained from the vote to proceed. Had he not, he may have been the one to write the Declaration of Independence instead of Jefferson, as he was still a leading voice in this crisis.
As I said at the outset of this article, I knew very little of Dickinson other than what limited reading I have done about him. And my perceptions of him have been colored by how he has been portrayed in movies.
He has been misjudged as a meek centrist and less than a patriot. And here is why that is an injustice.
Instead of receding into hiding during the conflict, Dickinson enlisted that summer of 1776 as a private in the Philadelphia militia. The man of Ben Franklin fame and stature chose to fight as a private. Think about what it takes to set aside your ego and go from the eloquent author and respected by all your peers as a statesman, and instead of becoming an office of high rank and remaining safely away from battle, you join the front lines. As the lowest rank.
For the British, Dickinson was the leading target in Philadelphia, and the price that Dickinson paid for his caution was that his home was burned to the ground. Think about that for a moment. He had hoped for reconciliation, for unity, and his payment was the destruction of his home. He rose to the occasion and spoke in support of principles from which he did not waver. That meant opposing the popular tide. And his home was burned to the ground as a consequence.
He remained fighting and refused a commission. Not the actions of someone who is timid. Not in the least.
Contributions To The Constitution
The Founding Fathers were lucky that Dickinson returned to serve when the call was made to craft the US Constitution. More so than Madison, Dickinson was a proponent for clearly delineated, narrow powers for the new federal government. The instinct to carefully constrain the power of government came from this experience in law and an understanding of maintaining a balance of power.
Dickinson was a key proponent of the bicameral legislature, and advocated for equal representation in the Senate, while allowing the House to be representative of the states’ populations. He was instrumental in Roger Sherman’s effort with the Connecticut Compromise. With respect to the Executive Branch, Dickinson believed that multiple roles should have been held by different individuals, instead of a single executive. Again, constraining power was key to preserving the liberty that the colonies had fought for and won.
To support ratification of the Constitution, and to refute arguments offered by the Anti-Federalists who opposed its adoption, Dickinson wrote a series of essays as “Fabius”. While the Federalist Papers were distributed primarily in New York during that time, Dickinson’s writing was critical to the remaining colonies' understanding of the intent of the Constitution.
What Is The Lesson?
I heard someone say “Principles work when applied, and bring predictability. Gravity is a principle, it always works. Therefore principles will always work”. This is very true when seeking truth. In Dickinson’s case, his principles guided Pennsylvania, as he understood the nature of monarchs and Parliament. But that failed him with respect to treachery of Britain after the Battle of Concord. At that point, Adams, Franklin and Jefferson understood that there was no turning back. Could the colonies have waited until France came to their aid? I can’t say. But you have to admire Dickinson for choosing principle over the heat of the moment and power. He helped create a movement that grew greater than him, and he could have attempted to turn that movement toward personal gain. Instead he remained true to his principles. For that he paid dearly, and his jumping to defend his country directly, at the risk of his own life, shows he did believe in resisting tyranny. What he wrote regarding guarding your rights was not to gain him fame.
When you think about our situation today, we have people who we turn to as leaders who chose popularity over principle. And in following their lead, we are guided away from some of the more pressing threats to our liberty. Dickinson rang the alarm when people were celebrating the appeal of the Stamp Act - they didn’t realize that a skirmish was won, but more battles lay ahead. This marked him, and he nearly paid with his life. He did it nonetheless.
Today we have to be vigilant like he was in identifying threats to our liberty ahead of time, and we also have to learn there are times to fight. It’s hard to say when you override your inner voice and modulate. But if popularity is our guide, we will not be well served.
If popularity is our guide, we will not be well served.-
Professor Zee I have learned so much more yet again.
Well done Sir !