Social Reform and Antislavery 131They rejected the British concept of virtual rep-
resentation. They saw legislators as representatives—
that is, as agents reflecting the interests of the voters
of a particular district rather than superior persons
chosen to decide public issues according to their own
best judgment. Where political power was involved,
the common American principle was every man for
himself, but also everyone for the nation, the repub-
lic. People were no longer subjects, but citizens,
partsof government, obedient to its laws, but not
blindly subordinate to governmental authority epito-
mized in the monarch.
A majority of the constitutions contained bills of
rights (such as the one George Mason wrote for
Virginia) protecting the people’s civil liberties against
all branches of the government. In Britain such guaran-
tees checked only the Crown; the Americans invoked
them against their elected representatives as well.
The state governments combined the best of the
British system, including its respect for status, fairness,
and due process with the uniquely American stress on
individualism and a healthy dislike of excessive
authority. The idea of drafting written frames of
government—contracts between the people and their
representatives that carefully spelled out the powers
and duties of the latter—grew out of the experience of
the colonists after 1763, when the vagueness of the
unwritten British constitution had caused so much
controversy, and from the compact principle, the
heart of republican government as described so elo-
quently in the Declaration of Independence. This
constitutionalism represented one of the most impor-
tant innovations of the Revolutionary era: a peaceful
method for altering the political system. In the midst
of violence, the states changed their frames of govern-
ment in an orderly, legal manner—a truly remarkable
achievement that became a beacon of hope to reform-
ers all over the world. The states’ example, the
Reverend Simeon Howard of Massachusetts pre-
dicted, “will encourage the friends and rouse a spirit
of liberty through other nations.”
Social Reform and Antislavery
Many states seized the occasion of constitution mak-
ing to introduce important political and social
reforms. In Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina,
and other states the seats in the legislature were
reapportioned in order to give the western districts
their fair share. Primogeniture, entail (the right of an
owner of property to prevent heirs from ever selling
it), and quitrents were abolished wherever they had
existed. Steps toward greater freedom of religion
were taken, especially in states where the Anglican
Church had enjoyed a privileged position. In
Virginia the movement to separate church and state
was given the force of law by Jefferson’s Statute of
Religious Liberty, enacted in 1786. “Our civil rights
have no dependence on our religious opinions, any
more than our opinions in physics or geometry,” the
statute declared. “Truth is great and will prevail if
left to herself.”
Many states continued to support religion;
Massachusetts did not end public support of
Congregational churches until the 1830s. But after
the Revolution the states usually distributed the
money roughly in accordance with the numerical
strength of the various Protestant denominations.
A number of states moved tentatively against
slavery. In attacking British policy after 1763,
colonists had frequently claimed that Parliament
was trying to make slaves of them. No less a person-
age than George Washington wrote in 1774: “We
must assert our rights, or submit to every imposi-
tion, that can be heaped upon us, till custom and
use shall make us tame and abject slaves.” However
exaggerated the language, such reasoning led to
denunciations of slavery, often vague but significant
in their effects on public opinion. The fact that
practically every important thinker of the European
Enlightenment (Montesquieu, Voltaire, Diderot,
and Rousseau in France; David Hume, Samuel
Johnson, and Adam Smith in England, to name the
most important) had criticized slavery on moral
and economic grounds also had an impact on edu-
cated opinion. Then, too, the forthright statements
in the Declaration of Independence about liberty
and equality seemed impossible to reconcile with
slaveholding. “How is it,” asked Dr. Samuel
Johnson, the celebrated English writer who
opposed independence, “that we hear the loudest
yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?”An antislavery medallion from the early 1800s.