Forgotten Foundation of the Revolution: Letters from a Farmer
John Dickinson’s Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania rank among the most important essays espousing the cause of liberty during the American Revolution. Yet, today – few people have read or even heard of them.
Written in response to the Townshend Acts, Dickinson covered a lot of ground, but he emphasized several key principles over and over again. These became the foundation for some of the most widely-held viewpoints of the American Revolution. Some of the principles he articulated ultimately influenced the creation of the Constitution for the United States.
The first of the Letters appeared on Dec. 2, 1767, in the Pennsylvania Chronicle, with the remainder published over the following 10 weeks.
Dickinson was a key figure in colonial opposition to the 1765 Stamp Act. In the face of widespread non-compliance, Parliament ultimately repealed the hated act, but asserted the power to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever” with the passage of the Declaratory Act of 1766. The Townshend Acts were an example of this power, aiming to reaffirm control over the American colonies and raise revenue for Great Britain.
Writing simply as “A Farmer,” Dickinson blasted the legitimacy of the acts, supporting his arguments with five key principles.
LIBERTY IS THE FOUNDATION
In Dickinson’s view, liberty serves as the foundation of the entire political economy. Early in his first essay, he wrote, “From my infancy I was taught to love humanity and liberty. Enquiry and experience have since confirmed my reverence for the lessons then given me, by convincing me more fully of their truth and excellence.”
Furthermore, Dickinson asserted that “benevolence toward mankind” leads people to care about the welfare of others and motivates them to find ways to fulfill those ends.
But that only happens in a free society.
“These can be found in liberty only, and therefore her sacred cause ought to be espoused by every man on every occasion, to the utmost of his power.”
In his third essay, Dickinson emphasized that liberty must be preserved in a rational and intentional manner.
“The cause of liberty is a cause of too much dignity to be sullied by turbulence and tumult. It ought to be maintained in a manner suitable to her nature.”
He reiterated the importance of liberty and the need to defend it in the 11th essay, writing, “A perpetual jealousy, respecting liberty, is absolutely requisite in all free states.”
And, quoting Montesquieu, he warned what would happen if people failed to protect their own liberty diligently.
“Let us take care of our rights, and we therein take care of our prosperity. ‘SLAVERY IS EVER PRECEDED BY SLEEP.”
DIVISION OF POWER
While Dickinson never used the term “federalism,” in his Letters, the principle is evident throughout the essays in his appeal to separation of powers.
Dickinson argued that from the beginning, political power was divided between the colonies and the mother country. For instance, Parliament was invested with certain general powers, such as regulating external commerce.
Dickinson conceded Parliament’s “legal authority to regulate the trade of Great Britain, and all her colonies,” calling it “essential to the relation between a mother country and her colonies; and necessary for the common good of all.”
However, the colonies also had powers that Parliament couldn’t legitimately infringe upon – including the levying of taxes, especially those for the raising of revenue.
But he went on to insist, “The power to raise revenue, this I call an innovation; and a most dangerous innovation.”
In the seventh essay, Dickinson asserted that the Townshend duties were indeed taxes “expressly laid FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF TAKING MONEY.”
He returned to this assertion in the ninth essay, taking on the common British retort that the taxes were merely being collected to pay for the “defense” of the colonies by the mother country.
“If money be raised upon us by others, without our consent, for our ‘defense,’ those who are the judges in levying it, must also be the judges in applying it. Of consequence the money said to be taken from us for our defense, may be employed to our injury.”
All this was unprecedented in the British constitutional system.
Fundamentally, Dickinson argued that government power is naturally limited by its constitution, and being kept within those bounds was the definition of freedom. “For WHO ARE A FREE PEOPLE?” he asked.
In answering his own question, he warned that free people didn’t simply trust the government to do the right thing.
“Not those, over whom government is reasonable and equitably exercised, but those, who live under a government so constitutionally checked and controlled, that proper provision is made against its being otherwise exercised.”
He revisited this argument in essay number four, emphasizing the novelty of parliamentary taxation by pointing out that “NO TAXES ever have been, or can be constitutionally imposed on them, but by their respective legislatures.”
In other words, Dickinson believed Parliament was exercising illegitimate power contrary to the unwritten British constitution, and without the consent of the people.
GOVERNMENT BY CONSENT
One of Dickinson’s primary objections to the British assertion of power over the colonists was that it violated the principle of the “consent of the governed,” a phrase later used more famously in the Declaration of Independence.
Dickinson was heavily influenced by John Locke and we find Lockean principles permeating his work. The need for the people to consent to government was one of the revolutionary principles that underpinned the evolution of American politics.
In his Second Treatise on Government, Locke wrote, “Men being, as has been said, by nature all free, equal and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subject to the political power of another, without his own consent.”
He went on to insist that the only way the people can be bound by political power “is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community, for their comfortable, safe and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any that are not of it.”
The lack of representation and consent along with a redrawing of constitutional lines was at the root of Dickinson’s objections to the Townshend taxes.
“Here is money drawn, without their consent, from a society, who have constantly enjoyed a constitutional mode of raising all money among themselves.”
He expounded on this idea in his fifth essay.
“For all these powers, established by the mother country over the colonies; for all these immense emoluments derived by her from them; for all their difficulties and distresses in fixing themselves, what was the recompense made them? A communication of her rights in general, and particularly of that great one, the foundation of all the rest—that their property, acquired with so much pain and hazard, should be disposed of by none but themselves.” [Emphasis added]
In his seventh essay, he asserted that taxing people without consent, at least through representation, was akin to slavery.
“Those who are taxed without their own consent, expressed by themselves or their representatives, are slaves. We are taxed without our own consent, expressed by ourselves or our representatives. We are therefore—SLAVES.”
In Dickinson’s mind, this idea of consent and the people’s right to make their own decisions about taxes was crucial for liberty. This being the case, he argued that “no free people ever existed, or can ever exist, without keeping, to use a common, but strong expression, ‘the purse strings’ in their own hands.”
He called this “a constitutional check on the administration” that doesn’t require violence, and he warned, “but where such a power is not lodged in the people, oppression proceeds uncontrolled in its career, till the governed, transported into rage, seek redress in the midst of blood and confusion.”
THE DANGER OF PRECEDENT
Some argued that the British imposition of taxes wasn’t that bad. After all, they weren’t burdensome levies.
Citing the Roman historian Tacitus, Dickinson insisted that wasn’t the point. Even if the imposition was small, the precedent would lead to more and more usurpation.
“All artful rulers, who strive to extend their power beyond its just limits, endeavor to give to their attempts as much semblance of legality as possible. Those who succeed them may venture to go a little further; for each new encroachment will be strengthened by a former. ‘That which is now supported by examples, growing old, will become an example itself,’ and thus support fresh usurpations.”
Dickinson directly took on the notion that the Townshend taxes “were of no consequence” because “the duties are small,” calling that view “a fatal error.”
“That is the very circumstance most alarming to me. For I am convinced, that the authors of this law would never have obtained an act to raise so trifling a sum as it must do, had they not intended by it to establish a precedent for future use.”
He characterized the entire scheme as a sort of setup to establish a precedent for more power in the future.
“I am convinced, that the authors of this law would never have obtained an act to raise so trifling a sum as it must do, had they not intended by it to establish a precedent for future use. To console ourselves with the smallness of the duties, is to walk deliberately into the snare that is set for us, praising the neatness of the workmanship.” [Emphasis added]
He made the implications of the precedent crystal clear.
“In short, if they have a right to levy a tax of one penny upon us, they have a right to levy a million upon us: For where does their right stop?”
In the ninth essay, he reiterated this warning, writing “Some persons may imagine the sums to be raised by it, are but small, and therefore may be inclined to acquiesce under it.” He called submission to the duties conduct “dangerous to freedom” and insisted it “can never be adopted.”
“Nothing is wanted at home but a PRECEDENT, the force of which shall be established, by the tacit submission of the colonies.”
He underscored this using a history lesson.
Spain, Dickinson noted, “was once free.” Its governance was similar to that of the colonies. No money could be raised without the people’s consent. But an ongoing war against the Moors required funding. The king received a grant of money to fund the fight, but he was concerned it might not be a sufficient amount to pay for the war effort long-term. So, the king asked that “he might be allowed, for that emergency only, to raise more money without assembling the Cortes.”
The Cortes was the Spanish representative body – similar to the Parliament.
Dickinson noted that the proposal was “violently opposed by the best and wisest men in the assembly.” However, the majority eventually acquiesced and approved the measure. And thus began a slide down a slippery slope. As Dickinson described it “this single concession was a PRECEDENT for other concessions of the like kind, until at last the crown obtained a general power of raising money, in cases of necessity.”
The legislature gave an inch and the king took a mile. Dickinson wrote, “From that period the Cortes ceased to be useful—the people ceased to be free.”
In the 11th essay, he again reminded readers that the “late acts of parliament” are “the foundation of future measures injurious to these colonies.”
In other words, if the people allowed the acts to stand, it would certainly set the precedent for more of the same in the future.
“When an act injurious to freedom has been once done, and the people bear it, the repetition of it is most likely to meet with submission. For as the mischief of the one was found to be tolerable, they will hope that of the second will prove so too; and they will not regard the infamy of the last, because they are stained with that of the first.” [Emphasis original]
THE RIGHT TO RESIST
Given the threat to liberty and the danger of allowing the government to get its foot in the door, it’s not surprising that Dickinson emphatically supported the colonists’ right to resist unwarranted measures.
“I hope these colonies will never, to their latest existence, want understanding sufficient to discover the intentions of those who rule over them, nor the resolution necessary for asserting their interests. They will always have the same rights, that all free states have, of judging when their privileges are invaded, and of using all prudent measures for preserving them.”
He went on to assert that “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.”
Closing out the 12th essay, Dickinson reasserted the importance of holding the government in check.
“But when these officers, through rashness or design, desire to enlarge their authority beyond its due limits, and expect improper concessions to be made to them, from regard for the employments they bear, their attempts should be considered as equal injuries to the crown and people, and should be courageously and constantly opposed.”
While Dickinson wasn’t a pacifist, he was heavily influenced by Quaker sensibilities and his strategy reflected this. He argued that people have every right to resist government overreach, but that the approach should be conservative and incremental, starting with protest and petition.
“They have not at first any other right, than to represent their grievances, and to pray for redress, unless an emergency is so pressing as not to allow time for receiving an answer to their applications, which rarely happens.”
This was the course of action Dickinson was urging.
“The constitutional modes of obtaining relief are those which I wish to see pursued on the present occasion; that is, by petitions of our assemblies, or where they are not permitted to meet, of the people, to the powers that can afford us relief.”
But if the people’s “applications are disregarded” it opens the door to further action, including refusal to submit, boycotts, and the like.
“If, however, it shall happen, by an unfortunate course of affairs, that our applications to his Majesty and the parliament for redress, prove ineffectual, let us then take another step, by withholding from Great Britain all the advantages she has been used to receive from us.”
Dickinson seemed skeptical that British officials would listen to reason, but he did believe that taking action would force their hand, as it had during the Stamp Act.
“They CANNOT understand the reasoning that opposes their power and desires. But let it be made their interest to understand such reasoning – and a wonderful light is instantly thrown upon the matter; and then, rejected remonstrances become as clear as ‘proofs of holy writ.’”
Dickinson warned that those who refused to resist were putting themselves at grave risk.
“They voluntarily fasten their chains, by adopting a pusillanimous opinion, ‘that there will be too much danger in attempting a remedy.’”
Arguing against the Stamp Act a few years earlier, Dickinson warned about British claims to power, calling the act “an EXPERIMENT OF YOUR DISPOSITION.”
“If you quietly bend your Necks to that Yoke, you prove yourselves ready to receive any Bondage to which your Lords and Masters shall please to subject you.”
Closing out the 11th essay, Dickson came back to this message, once again referring to the British claim of power as a test.
“Upon the whole, for my part, I regard the late act as an experiment made of our disposition. It is a bird sent out over the waters, to discover, whether the waves, that lately agitated this part of the world with such violence, have yet subsided. If this adventurer gets footing here, we shall quickly find it to be of the kind described by the poet
“Infelix vates.”
A direful foreteller of future calamities.”
Dickinson didn’t take defensive force off the table as a last resort.
“If at length it becomes undoubted that an inveterate resolution is formed to annihilate the liberties of the governed, the English history affords frequent examples of resistance by force.”
He maintained that “what particular circumstances will in any future case justify such resistance can never be ascertained till they happen.” But he laid out a general principle.
“Perhaps it may be allowable to say generally, that it never can be justifiable until the people are fully convinced that any further submission will be destructive to their happiness.”
TIMELESS LESSONS
In his final essay, Dickinson summed things up by asserting that the road to happiness is built on freedom and property rights, which in turn, hinges on the people’s right to consent.
“Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds – that we cannot be HAPPY, without being FREE – that we cannot be free, without being secure in our property – that we cannot be secure in our property, if, without our consent, others may, as by right, take it away.”
Citing Deuteronomy, he urged readers to teach these truths “diligently unto your children, and talk of them when you sit in your houses, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.”
The impact of the Letters was wide-ranging as the essays were republished in most major colonial newspapers, as well as in Great Britain and Europe. After reading them, the French philosopher Voltaire compared Dickinson to Cicero, the celebrated Roman statesman and philosopher.
They quickly became the most widely-read documents on American liberty until the publication of Thomas Paine’s Common Sense in 1776, making Dickinson one of the most famous Americans in the world, second only to Benjamin Franklin.
Most importantly, the principles underpinning the letters drove the Revolution forward and laid a philosophical bedrock upon which the United States was built.
Dickinson concluded his final essay with words of encouragement, expressing confidence that “You will convince the world of the justice of your demands and the purity of your intentions.”
“While all mankind must, with unceasing applauses, confess, that YOU indeed DESERVE liberty, who so well understand it, so passionately love it, so temperately enjoy it, and so wisely, bravely, and virtuously assert, maintain, and defend it.”
Latest posts by Mike Maharrey (see all)