Authority and Revolution in Two Declarations from the English Civil War and the American Revolution
The Declaration of Parliament and Congress, Assembled
The American Declaration of Independence and the English Declaration to Justify Their Proceedings and Resolutions to Take Up Arms share many striking similarities. Both were produced to justify revolution against an English Monarch, both were grounded in English Common law, and both formatted their document in the form of an appeal to the world. The continental congress even passed a declaration in 1775 of the same name and modeled after the English declaration, showing how interconnected the English revolution and the American revolution are. However, despite all these similarities and connections, there are two critical differences between the two documents. First, the English document appealed to the ancient constitution for authority, while the American document appealed to the novel ideas of popular sovereignty and natural rights. Second, the American document argued that the goal of its revolution was to establish a government that was based on the consent of the governed and natural rights, while the British document’s goal was simply to return to the status quo, although this would change.
Where is Authority Derived From?
Perhaps the most famous line of the Declaration of Independence is the assertion that governments “derive their just powers from the consent of the governed”, which indicated a fundamental change from the British document, which argued that parliament’s authority came from the duty of every “honest Mand” (the original document contains this spelling) to protect “the Laws and Liberties of this Kingdom, and the Power and Privileges of Parliament”. The dichotomy between the two sources of authority is that for Parliament, the authority came from history, and past established laws and systems of government while the American document derived its authority from the novel concept of the consent of the governed. While the American appeal to authority is relatively simple, the Parliamentary appeal is convoluted.
Parliament’s authority was originally derived from the Magna Carta, which laid the groundwork for the powers and limits of both Parliament and the Monarchy. However, there was a major issue for the British justifying their revolution against the king with the “ancient constitution” which was that the Magna Carta justified the Kings actions, not Parliaments. For context, Parliament’s resistance to the Monarchy began under Charles I, who dissolved parliament for 9 years. Under the Magna Carta, he was permitted to do this, however, he could not raise any taxes, except the Ship Tax. This tax allowed the king to tax English citizens without the consent of Parliament. However, the King needed more money to fight the Scots during the Second Bishops War, which meant that the King had to summon the Long Parliament. This Parliament was granted many rights and privileges by the revenue-starved Charles I, but the Parliament kept passing laws restricting the King and empowering themselves, even past what the Magna Carta allowed. This led Charles to oppose Parliament and a revolution began. This highlighted the hypocrisies in the British Declaration; it claimed part of its reason for the rebellion was to prevent “the hazarding of his Majesty's Person” and to defend the “Power and Privilege of Parliament”, both of which the Parliament had put in danger during its session as the Long Parliament, not the King. Thus, Magna Carta, which Parliament appealed to for authority, actually justified the King’s position.
Arguments About the Meaning of Their Revolution
The discussion of authority above hints at different arguments presented by each document for its revolution. The American document argued that the current King, George III, had a history of tyrannical actions that justified the people’s right to rebel against the government because it was destructive to the end of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Thus, the American revolution was going towards something new, freedom from the monarchy. By contrast, the English document argued that since the king’s advisors were advising him wrong (as it was difficult to imagine a legitimate King doing wrong) and this endangered the kingdom’s laws and liberties, oppressed the true religion, and put in danger the Parliaments powers and privileges, the parliament had a right to rebel to protect these goals. These two different interpretations of the justification for revolution are critical in determining the end goals of the revolutions
For the Americans, the justification they provided for revolution indicates that they aimed to create a country where natural rights and consent to the power of a government were accepted and implemented. However, yet again, the British document’s goal is more convoluted. The stated goal of the document, preserving the power status quo pre-Charles I was ignored following his execution seven years later when the Commonwealth was proclaimed with Oliver Cromwell as its leader. The conflict between the stated goals and the actual accomplishment can be attributed to a lack of precedent early in the war for Parliament and to some of Charles’ actions later in the war, most notably his collusions with Scotland. In the early period of the revolution, the parliament was unsure of its goal. In an ancient constitutional system such as England during this time period, there was no way to alter the Magna Carta which established the government. Thus, Parliament was unsure of its ability to change the monarchical government it believed was tyrannical. This problem was solved later in the war, during the Trial of Charles the I, although it was never truly solved and contributed to the failure of the Commonwealth. Another explanation for the English document’s contradiction is that later in the war, Charles I rapidly lost popularity thanks to a deal he made with the Scottish so that they would help return him to power, but this alliance broke against Parliament’s skillful New Model Army. Now that the king had conspired with foreign powers, the goal of the revolution changed from maintaining the status quo to ending the monarchy, as Parliament felt betrayed since their own monarch was attempting to march on them with a foreign army.
Conclusion
The American Declaration of Independence and the English Declaration To Justify Their Proceedings and Resolutions to Take Up Arms are fundamentally different, both in their appeal to authority and their arguments for the goals of the two revolutions. For America, the authority is derived through the novel model of popular sovereignty and consent of the governed while for the English declaration, authority is paradoxically drawn from the Magna Carta, which supported the King, not Parliament. Moreover, the American declaration argued that its revolution was for a government based on the natural rights and consent of the citizens, while the English declaration asserted that its only goal was to return to the status quo as described by the Magna Carta. However, this goal shifted throughout the revolution, as the revolution as the monarchy was abolished after the revolution.