Key Takeaways
1. The American Revolution: A Rebellion for Royal Power, Not Against It.
The American Revolution, unlike the two seventeenth-century En glish revolutions and the French Revolution, was— for a great many of its protagonists— a revolution against a legislature, not against a king.
A Contrarian View. The traditional narrative of the American Revolution often portrays it as a fight against monarchy and executive tyranny, aligning with Whig principles. However, a significant number of American patriots viewed their struggle differently. They saw Parliament, not the King, as the primary aggressor, a "corrupt multitude" encroaching on their liberties.
Parliamentary Usurpation. For these patriots, the conflict was fundamentally a "war of parliament." They believed Parliament had overstepped its bounds by claiming the right to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever." This was perceived as an illegitimate usurpation of power, threatening colonial self-governance and liberty.
Seeking Royal Protection. Instead of seeking less royal power, many patriots sought more. They looked to the Crown's prerogatives as a potential bulwark against parliamentary overreach, hoping the King would protect their liberties by exercising his authority independently of Parliament. This perspective fundamentally reinterprets the nature and purposes of the American Revolution.
2. Patriots Shifted from Whig Opposition to Royal Prerogative.
Colonial whigs who had long been "slumbering under the old prejudices in favour of Parliamentary power" suddenly found themselves confronted in the 1760s and 1770s with a parliament that claimed the right to legislate for them "in all cases whatsoever."
From Internal to Dominion. Initially, American colonists, steeped in Whig ideology, primarily challenged Parliament's right to impose internal taxes. However, the Townshend Acts, which levied duties on trade, forced a re-evaluation. Patriots like John Dickinson initially distinguished between duties for regulation (acceptable) and revenue (unacceptable), but this proved untenable.
Rejecting Parliamentary Jurisdiction. The logical next step, embraced by figures like Benjamin Franklin and James Wilson, was the "dominion theory." This asserted that Parliament had no jurisdiction whatsoever over British North America. The colonies were seen as separate dominions, connected to Britain solely through "the person and prerogative of the king."
Seeking Royal Authority. This radical shift meant that instead of fearing Crown power, many patriots began to advocate for its expansion. They proposed that the King should regulate imperial commerce and exercise a "negative voice" over colonial legislation, powers traditionally associated with royal prerogative, not parliamentary authority. This was a profound departure from conventional Whig thought.
3. The Stuart Monarchy Became a Model for Colonial Governance.
Indeed, as patriots attempted to make ideological sense of their new position, a great many gravitated toward the po liti cal and constitutional theory of those who had waged the last great campaign against the "usurpations" and "encroachments" of Parliament: the reviled Stuart monarchs of the seventeenth century.
Revisiting History. To justify their new stance, patriots like James Wilson and Edward Bancroft began to reinterpret seventeenth-century English history. They argued that James I and Charles I had correctly understood the colonies as private dominions of the Crown, governed by royal prerogative, outside Parliament's jurisdiction.
Parliament's "Usurpation." This revisionist history cast the English Civil War in a new light. The first parliamentary interference in colonial affairs, the Navigation Act of 1651, was seen as an illegitimate "usurpation" by the Long Parliament after the regicide. Patriots argued that this act established a "nefarious precedent" for later parliamentary encroachments.
Defending Stuart Principles. Loyalists like William Knox pointed out the irony of "puritanical inhabitants of New England" defending Stuart absolutism. Yet, patriots like Alexander Hamilton and James Iredell explicitly embraced this "Stuart pedigree," arguing that the Royalists had "gotten it right after all" in their defense of royal power against legislative overreach.
4. Representation Redefined: Authorization, Not Likeness, Justified Royal Power.
The Royalist provenance of the authorization argument becomes obvious and inescapable. The theory of repre sen ta tion to which American patriots gravitated during the imperial crisis had been designed in the seventeenth century to vindicate the representative character of hereditary monarchy...
Challenging Virtual Representation. The British administration's defense of "virtual representation"—that Parliament represented all British subjects, including colonists, due to shared interests—was a direct descendant of the 17th-century Parliamentarian theory. Patriots like Stephen Hopkins and James Otis rejected this, arguing that true representation required explicit "authorization."
The Authorization Dilemma. However, patriots diverged on what constituted authorization. Some, like James Wilson, argued it required voting, making it difficult to justify an unelected monarch's authority. Others recognized that if authorization meant tacit consent to a constitutional scheme, then an unelected monarch could indeed represent the people.
Royalist Theory's Appeal. For "patriot Royalists," this latter interpretation was crucial. It allowed them to argue that the King, through colonial charters and tacit consent, was authorized to govern America, making his prerogative compatible with liberty. This theory, originally developed by Royalists like Hobbes and Digges, provided the philosophical bedrock for their defense of Crown power against Parliament.
5. King George III's Stance Forced a Republican Turn.
It was because the king so resolutely refused to take the American side in this "contest of Constitutions" that his colonial subjects eventually determined to cut him loose.
King's Unwavering Support for Parliament. Despite fervent appeals from American subjects to revive defunct Stuart prerogatives and act as an independent sovereign, George III remained steadfast. He saw himself as a "parliamentary king," determined to uphold "the supreme authority of this legislature over all the dominions of my crown."
Indictment of the King. This refusal to interpose his veto or act as a "superintending power" for the empire led to a profound disillusionment. The Declaration of Independence, often seen as anti-monarchical, paradoxically indicted George III for failing to exercise the very prerogative powers (like vetoing parliamentary acts) that patriots had urged him to revive.
From King to Kingless. The King's rejection of the "patriot Royalist" vision abruptly ended the "flight to the king." This shift, particularly after his August 1775 proclamation of rebellion, transformed the American struggle from one for royal protection into one for complete independence, paving the way for a new form of government without a monarch.
6. Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" Introduced Radical Anti-Monarchism.
The Almighty, ever jealous of his honour, should disapprove a form of government which so impiously invades the prerogative of heaven.
A Scriptural Assault. Published in January 1776, Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" profoundly reshaped American political thought. Paine, drawing on a radical 17th-century Hebraizing tradition (like John Milton), argued that monarchy itself was inherently sinful and idolatrous, a rejection of God's sovereignty.
Beyond Arbitrary Power. Unlike traditional Whig republicanism, which focused on limiting arbitrary power, Paine's "exclusivist" republicanism condemned the title and institution of kingship. He argued that God's displeasure with the Israelites for demanding a king (I Samuel 8) was a universal condemnation of human monarchy, regardless of its powers.
Transformative Impact. This theological argument resonated deeply with a "religious people" in America, making the very idea of a king "odious." While many patriots initially sought a strong monarch, Paine's pamphlet made a kingless government seem divinely sanctioned, fundamentally altering the terms of the debate and making the establishment of an American monarchy virtually unthinkable.
7. Post-Independence Constitutions Initially Suppressed Executive Power.
The majority of legislators who framed the initial state constitutions now agreed fully with the sentiments of North Carolina’s William Hooper, who announced to the assembly of his state in October of 1776 that due to "the abuses which power in the hands of an Individual is liable to, and the unreasonableness that an individual should abrogate at plea sure the acts of the Representatives of the people," there should be no negative voice in the chief magistrate— no third branch of the legislature.
Whig Resurgence. In the immediate aftermath of independence, the anti-monarchical fervor ignited by Paine, combined with traditional Whig fears of executive overreach, led to the creation of state constitutions with deliberately weak governors. Most states denied their chief magistrates a "negative voice" (veto power) and subjected them to legislative control.
Legislative Supremacy. Pennsylvania's 1776 constitution, for example, vested "supreme legislative power" in a single assembly and created a subservient, plural executive. This reflected the belief that only a popular assembly could truly represent the people, and any independent executive power was inherently tyrannical.
A "Political Wilderness" for Royalists. For "patriot Royalists" like James Wilson and John Adams, this period was a "political wilderness." Their vision of a strong, independent executive, capable of checking legislative excesses, was largely rejected, seen as a dangerous throwback to the very monarchical system they had just overthrown.
8. Patriot Royalists Advocated for Strong State Executives.
Their project was not, as has so often been claimed, a "conservative" reaction against the principles of the Revolution; it was, rather, an attempt to realize, at long last, the radical, anti- whig vision of in de pen dent prerogative power on behalf of which so many Americans had rebelled.
Continuity of Vision. Despite the prevailing Whig sentiment, leading "patriot Royalists" like John Adams, James Wilson, and James Iredell remained committed to their anti-Whig principles. They saw the weak state executives as a dangerous imbalance, replicating the legislative tyranny they had fought against in Britain.
Lessons from the Long Parliament. These theorists argued that unchecked legislatures, like England's Long Parliament, were prone to ambition and despotism. They advocated for a "third branch" of government—a strong, independent governor with a veto—to prevent legislative encroachments and ensure a balanced constitution.
Massachusetts as a Model. The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, largely drafted by John Adams, marked a turning point. It provided for a popularly elected governor with a qualified negative, explicitly calling him "the Representative of the whole People." This document became a blueprint for the later federal executive, demonstrating the enduring influence of "patriot Royalist" ideas.
9. The 1787 Constitution Embodied the Royalist Vision of a Powerful Executive.
The Constitution, we might say, upheld the spirit of ’75.
A Strong Executive Emerges. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 saw a resurgence of "patriot Royalist" principles, particularly in the debates over the executive. James Wilson, leading the charge, proposed a "single person" executive with sweeping prerogative powers, including an "absolute negative" on legislation, direct popular election, and broad appointment authority.
Against Legislative Tyranny. Wilson explicitly framed the Revolution as a fight against Parliament, not the King, arguing that a strong executive was "the best safeguard against tyranny" from a "corrupt multitude" in the legislature. Alexander Hamilton, a staunch advocate for a powerful, even lifelong, executive, echoed these sentiments, praising the British government as the "best in the world."
Compromise and Triumph. While the final presidency was a compromise (e.g., a qualified veto, indirect election), it retained significant independence and prerogative powers. For Wilson and his allies, this represented the culmination of their two-decade campaign to establish a powerful, transcendent chief magistrate, capable of balancing legislative power and representing the interests of the entire nation.
10. American Republicanism: Monarchy Without Kings.
All know that a single magistrate is not a King.
Reconciling Power and Republicanism. A central challenge for "patriot Royalists" was to reconcile their vision of a powerful executive with the anti-monarchical sentiment prevalent after Paine's "Common Sense." James Wilson's solution was semantic: a "single magistrate" with extensive powers was not a "King" because the title of king, not the power, was the idolatrous offense.
The Essence of Republicanism. This allowed for a new definition of republicanism: a government without a king, but one that could still vest significant prerogative powers in a single, elected chief magistrate. The American presidency, with its "legal authority" and "transcendent" prerogatives, was thus presented as a "monarchical republic" or "limited monarchy" in all but name.
A Profound Irony. The American Revolution, therefore, led to a profound irony. While Britain, with its kings, evolved towards a parliamentary supremacy, the new American republic, without kings, developed a constitution that invested its chief magistrate with many of the very prerogative powers that Charles I had defended. This created "monarchy without kings" on one side of the Atlantic, and "kings without monarchy" on the other.
