Carl Becker, The History of Political Parties in the Province of New York 1760-1776. (Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1909).

Becker’s thesis argues that the American Revolution came about as the result of two movements: the

‘contest for. . . independence, and the democratization of American politics and society,’ or,

as he simply states it later in the book ‘the question of home rule’ and ‘who should rule at home’ (22).

Over the course of the book, he demonstrates that there was more to the Revolution than a ‘spontaneous

uprising of the colonies in defense of a political principle, or. . .the achievement of a deliberately

planned independence’ (52). The political situation in the years leading up to the war was very complex,

and party development was heavily influenced by the conflict between social and economic forces as well as

factors such as wealth, class, and power. The differentiation and polarization of the pro and

anti-revolution parties and of factions within these parties was due primarily to these factors.

Becker presents a convincing argument to support his assertions, using evidence from his extensive research

on the early development of political parties in the colony of New York. According to his research, the

first ‘broad, ill-defined distinction between the conservatives and the radical elements of the

population’ appeared at the time of the Stamp Act (51). However, the cause of the division was not the

Stamp Act itself. The conservative and radical factions both opposed to the act, but differed on the

type of response it merited, and who should decide on this response.

The division of the two parties tended to split down economic and social lines. Composed of ‘men of

property and political privilege’ who felt the Stamp Act was best resisted by evasion, the conservative

group opposed violent methods, outright violations of the law, and the involvement of the ‘unfranchised

classes’ in politics (51). Its members were used to holding political privilege and power. Until the

mid-eighteenth century, the aristocracy controlled politics in the province of New York. Representatives

were chosen primarily on the merits of personal loyalty and reputation, and the principle wealthy,

landed families basically ‘directed the infant colony’ (12-13). Conservatives felt that they had to protect

their privileged position against infringement from the Crown above, as well as from the general populace

below. This balancing became the essential governing factor of their policy in the pre-revolutionary

period.

The radical faction, on the other hand, was composed primarily of the ‘unfranchised’ or ‘lower’ classes and

a number of merchants and leaders who felt British taxation and oppression posed the greatest danger to

the colony (50). Willing to oppose British policy directly, using violent means if necessary, radicals

saw the conservative position as complicit, and advocated giving the population more political power.

Largely without the privilege, property, and wealth of most conservatives, members of the radical party had

less to lose, and were more willing to take risks.

The competition between the radicals and conservatives over who should ‘rule at home’ and what

their policy regarding relations with England should be continued through the meeting of the First

Continental Congress. After the First Continental Congress made direct resistance to England the

colony’s official policy, conservatives were increasingly forced to align themselves with either

loyalist or revolutionary factions (192). Some tried to hold out in the hopes of finding a middle ground

between the Crown and the colonies, until the Declaration of Independence made the possibility for

reconciliation or accommodation impossible.

Becker makes a good case for the influential role that economics, class, social standing, and wealth

played in the making of political parties, and the American Revolution, especially in the first five

chapters of his book. The point he makes about ‘who should rule at home’ being just as vital a question as

whether or not to have ‘home rule’ is also an important observation. The Revolution was not only

about gaining independence from England, but also the conflicts over how America as an independent nation

should be ruled, and by whom, conflicts which continued after the Revolution in the form of debates

over federal power, states’ rights, and the role of

the populace in politics (275-276).

Although Becker’s study focuses only on the province

of New York, he implies that the theory and method

could apply to other colonies as well. However, it

must be kept in mind that it is based on activities in

New York, a fairly conservative province that did not

even put in a vote on the issue of independence at the

Second Constitutional Congress. Massachusetts, for

example, appears much more radical in comparison

throughout the book. Just because the theory works

for one province does not mean it will work for all of

them.

Also, as pointed out by Arthur Schlesinger in his

introduction to the 1960 edition of the book, in his

rush to make the case for social and economic factors,

Becker ignores other influences, such as the political

conflict between Presbyterians and Anglicans, that

also should be taken into account (iv).

Sarah McLennan