Magna Carta, the Glorious Revolution, and American Democracy

Continuities?

At the start of the American War of Independence in late 1774, the First Continental Congress met to decide a course of action that would eventually lead to armed rebellion. Together, these representatives of the British colonies in North America wrote a Declaration of Rights and Grievances that demanded better treatment from the British King George III. In it, they demanded the liberties they believed were guaranteed by “the principles of the English Constitution, and several charters or compacts.” These included:

• freedom from taxation without representation
• the right to a trial by a jury of peers
• protection of life, liberty, and property

These phrases should be familiar to anyone who knows a bit about the American Constitution and the development of democracy in what would become the United States of America. They were all taken from British legal and political documents. So, would it be fair to say, as many historians have, that American democracy is based on British (or English) ideas of liberty and rights?

Magna Carta

The United Kingdom of Great Britain, which ruled the American colonies, was made up of a formal union of the kingdoms of England and Scotland in 1707. Because England also ruled Wales and Ireland at this time, those countries also became part of Great Britain. Together, they formed a single political unit. Although the Continental Congress would later cite its “constitution,” Britain had no actual constitutional document, but rather a number of “charters or compacts” between the King and various parts of the population, which had grown over time. Most of them came from the English part of Great Britain.

The first of these documents was the Magna Carta. Confusingly, there are several versions of this “Great Charter” (the translation for the Latin words Magna Carta). The most important was signed by King John on June 15, 1215. He didn’t sign by choice, he was actually forced to sign by his nobles, known as barons in the document.

The Magna Carta guaranteed certain rights and freedoms, mostly to the barons. The barons were unhappy that both John and his father, Henry II, had together taxed them and taken away a lot of their power and authority. Henry II had been an effective and powerful king, and so the barons were unable to push back against his taxes and centralization of power. But John was less respected and less personally powerful, so the barons forced him to agree to some reforms. Most of these reforms merely benefited this small group of wealthy and powerful men: limiting the taxes they could be forced to pay (unless they agreed) and promising them swift access to justice. This is precisely the kind of stuff you find in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. Note these comparisons:

So, some of the rights that the founders of the United States would emphasize were indeed found in the Magna Carta. But remember, these rights largely applied only to important and powerful men in thirteenth-century England. There were a few mentions of serfs and peasants, but they were very limited indeed.

English Civil War

A second important event in British history was the English Civil War of 1642-1651, not to be confused with the American Civil War two hundred years later.

The English Civil War was fought between those who supported the King—Charles I—and those who supported the English Parliament, a semi-elected body. A war like this, between a king and a parliament, can easily be seen as a model for the American War of Independence in that the fight is for democracy and constitutionalism. And, there’s a lot to that assessment.

First, the cause of the English Civil War was mostly about taxes imposed by the king, without the support of Parliament. (Sounds a lot like the American Revolutionary demand of “no taxation without representation”). Second, the English Civil War was between a group of semi-elected officials—members of Parliament—and an unelected King. Finally, it was a war that ended with the execution of King Charles I—killing a king is about as revolutionary as it gets!

The turmoil of the English Civil War gave rise to a number of groups who were very democratic. One of these groups were the Levellers, who were radical supporters of the Parliamentary side. They called for:

• rule by the people (a phrase that would come back in the American Revolution)
• a widespread right to vote
• religious tolerance

But, the Levellers did not win this conflict. First, even many of their allies did not agree with their radical ideas. But second, in 1660, Charles I’s son—Charles II—was restored to the throne of England and Scotland, and the monarchy was restored.

Glorious Revolution

Now for the third event in English political history that is often invoked as important to the ideas of American revolutionaries: the Glorious Revolution of 1688. This was a bloodless revolution that replaced James II, Charles II’s son, with a new King and Queen—William of Orange (from the Netherlands) and his English wife, Mary.

The Glorious Revolution took place partly because James II suspended Parliament and tried to rule all by himself. This unpopular strategy got him replaced. When the rebels put William and Mary on the throne, they didn’t want this kind of thing to happen again. So, they got them to sign an important document called the Bill of Rights. This English Bill of Rights of 1689 had a lot of similarities to the later American Constitution and Bill of Rights a century later.

For example:

But some might argue that the Glorious Revolution was not really revolutionary. It was mostly organized by a group of wealthy men who replaced one king with another. The new guy, King William, was no democrat. He merely agreed to provide a few rights for others in order to get the throne of this increasingly powerful kingdom.

Limitations of the argument

In fact, it is possible to argue that there was no real tradition of democratic rule in England at all by the time of the American Revolution. Although the American revolutionaries imagined that the Magna Carta had been an important democratic document, it really just affirmed the power of the barons. The English Civil War had ended not in democracy but rather a restored monarchy. The English Bill of Rights was very limited.

Indeed, the English and Scottish political philosophers who most inspired the Americans were those who had lost in these conflicts. They were the opponents of the monarchy who called for total—okay, almost total— democracy. But, these philosophers were not in power. They called for local rule, for rights for anyone—well, anyone who owned land—and for religious tolerance. Back in Britain, in fact, their work was not that widely read.

But these opponents of the British Kings were very popular in the American colonies. Pamphlets written by Thomas Paine and other American rebels, many of whom were born in Britain, cited the Levellers and other inspiring radicals.

Why were the radical ideas of the British opposition so popular in the British North American colonies? Unlike England, the American colonies had lots of people owning land, instead of just a few. Also, they were far away from the British government and had to make decisions on their own. As a result, they had elected local governments to make decisions at least on local matters. Finally, lots of different religious groups lived together. So, the radical ideas of the opposition writers appealed to them.

This isn’t to say that the English legal and political tradition wasn’t important to the American Revolution. It’s just that the radicals who were most influential on American laws and documents had less power in Britain itself.