Note to Reader: Eighteenth century spelling and grammatical conventions have been followed in all primary quotes.

In 1776, rebel agitator John Adams called John Dickinson a "piddling Genius" who gave "a silly Cast to our whole Doings" at the Second Continental Congress. He also claimed Dickinson "suffered by the Timidity of . . . over grown Fortunes." In other words: he was a fool and a coward. Adams was wrong. The majority of historians also portray Dickinson as the villain of the Second Continental Congress who tried to stop the Resolution on Independence. They too are wrong.have unfairly represented Dickinson’s character. Despite historians’ efforts to affix some sort of ideological label to Dickinson, whether conservative or radical, it has proven nearly impossible to do so. Dickinson’s His life and career seem to defy any sort of category and ultimately it is not important to which end of the political spectrum he belonged. It is more significant that during his career in public office, John Dickinson proved, however cautious, to be an ardent defender of American liberties who consistently acted from a genuine desire to protect and strengthen the American Colonies. He deserves to be numbered among the patriots of the Revolution.

During his lifetime, Dickinson enjoyed a widespread reputation as a brilliant and fair statesman, ultimately winning the respect of even his opponents. He proved numerous times he was willing to adhere to his principles in the face of rejection and danger to his own security. He enjoyed immense popularity when he protested the taxes imposed by Great Britain, but found himself reviled when he opposed independence. By focusing on Dickinson’s decision against independence in 1776, contemporary historians overlook Dickinson’s active role in the political life of the American Colonies throughout the Revolutionary period from 1764 to 1783.

John Dickinson was born in 1732 to wealthy Quakers, Samuel and Mary Dickinson in Maryland. He left for Great Britain in1752 and spent three or four years studying law at Middle Temple. There he learned Enlightenment philosophy from some of the best practitioners of law at the time. Not all of Dickinson’s experiences in London were positive and his observations of Parliament did not leave him with the impression of a virtuous, august body working for the betterment of the British people. As historian John Ferling states, Dickinson "concluded that the English were an intemperate and immoral people . . . that the political system was hopelessly corrupted, and that the nation was in the hands of diabolical mediocrities." Dickinson’s disgust at the workings of the British political system made him highly apprehensive of any increased royal authority in the American Colonies. Although he wished the British Parliament to remain as far removed from the Colonies as possible, Dickinson still held some respect for British ideals and its protection of the "rights of man."

Upon returning to the American Colonies, Dickinson opened a law practice in Delaware and was elected to the local assembly. He inherited a large tract of land in Pennsylvania and was subsequently elected to the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1762. __

This marked the John Dickinson’s election to the Pennsylvania Assembly in 1762 marked the beginning of his prominent the political careerprominence he would later obtain.

At this point in his career, Dickinson enjoyed widespread popularity and he was appointed to several important committees in the Assembly. This soon changed. By holding to his principles, Dickinson lost a good measure of his popularity.

Just over a year after Dickinson took office, the Pennsylvania Assembly became embroiled in a contentious debate over the basic structure of the Colony’s government. The trouble facing the Assembly in 1764 had its roots in the founding of the Colony. American Colonies were granted charters under a variety of circumstances, but Pennsylvania had a unique form of government. In 1681, William Penn received a grant from King Charles I for the land that became Pennsylvania and Penn established his Colony as a haven of religious freedom. In an attempt to ensure that Pennsylvania retained the liberties he valued, Penn outlined the Charter of Privileges in 1701. This document propelled the Colony towards self-government by allowing the Pennsylvania Assembly to initiate bills instead of merely passing judgment on those proposed by the governor; however, the governor still retained veto power. The Charter also permitted liberties not provided for in the original royal grant. This proprietary system sufficed as the Colony’s constitution for over fifty years asnd members of the Penn family continued to hold the governorship.

However, by 1764 the situation had changed and the then current governor, John Penn, began to overstep the boundaries set by the Charter of Privileges. In the opinion of John Penn and his relatives, the Charter was invalid except where it was in keeping with the royal grant established in 1681. To make matters worse, the Colony faced increasingly high defense bills incurred by fighting Native AmericansIndians in western Pennsylvania. The Assembly needed to find a way to raise the necessary money and proposed taxing property owned by the Penns, just as all other property was taxed. Up until this time it had been the prerogative of the Penn proprietors to be exempt from property taxes. As expected, Governor Penn vetoed the Assembly’s proposition. Delegates of the Pennsylvania Assembly found his actions intolerable. In the Assembly’s opinion, the Penns were protecting their own personal interests without regard for the needs of the Colony.

The situation quickly transformed from a question of raising defense money into a dispute concerning the structure of the government in Pennsylvania. Benjamin Franklin, a prominent member of the Assembly, proposed a petition be sent to King George III asking him to accept Pennsylvania as a royal colony under direct control of the crown. On May 23, 1764 the Pennsylvania Assembly appointed Benjamin Franklin and Joseph Galloway, another influential member of that body, to a committee to draft the petition to the King. These two men hoped this would end the excesses of the Penn proprietors, as a royal government meant the Penns would no longer have special privileges. Franklin and Galloway thought this a fair trade, because in their opinions the King was too far removed to cause any trouble. They persisted that a change in government was the only way to provide the needed money to defend western Pennsylvania, because Governor Penn continued to block the Assembly’s efforts to raise the funds.

It was expected that Dickinson would also side with those who favored a royalist government. During his first year in the Assembly, Dickinson had established a reputation as vehemently anti-proprietor and opposed to the power the Penn family wielded. However, on May 24, he surprised the Assembly by stepping forward to protest Franklin’s petition to the King.

Dickinson’s opposition to the idea of a royalist government marked the first time he stood on his principles against the majority and became a significant, if controversial political leader. His arguments against Franklin’s petition outlined the philosophy Dickinson would defend for the rest of his political career. Briefly stated, Dickinson opposed the change because he feared Pennsylvania would lose its liberties. In Dickinson’s opinion, closer association with the crown would only bring disaster.

Within the first minutes of his opposition speech, Dickinson made it abundantly clear that he was not opposed to the change out of any love for the Penn family, but out of concern for the privileges treasured by Pennsylvania. He enumerated a few of the liberties practiced in Pennsylvania: religious freedom, no religious oaths or tests required to hold office, no hereditary aristocracy, and no executive that could disband the Assembly. He stubbornly persisted that the freedoms found in Pennsylvania should not be violated by any government – British or American. To make his point, Dickinson asked the Assembly to:

Pennsylvania was freer than Britain, because the Colony was not tethered by the centuries of tradition found in Britain. Dickinson was convinced that should Pennsylvania draw Parliament’s attention to it, Pennsylvanians’ liberties would disappear.

Dickinson was not intransigently opposed to a royalist government. There were terms that would have allowed him to accept such a transformation:

Dickinson wanted assurance before taking any radical actions such, that nothing he valued would be lost. This cautious stance led him to be unfairly labeled a conservative; however, John Dickinson’s staunch refusal to take any action that had the possibility of harming Pennsylvania’s liberties was not the stance of a conservative. He did not argue that certain privileges should be retained by the King and aristocracy, but simply advocated caution.

Dickinson was not cautious out of a fundamental fear of change; he merely detested haste and did not want the Assembly to act without thought. He knew that it was easy to make a decision in a heat of passion that would not have been made had time been taken to consider the consequences. Dickinson used an analogy to illustrate his wish for prudence:

Dickinson realized that the actions of the Penn family were outrageous, but was not convinced that royal authority would provide any better protection for the liberties he held dear. He saw nothing that would be lost in cool deliberation that would be gained by immediate and thoughtless action.

If the Pennsylvania Assembly sent Franklin’s petition to Britain, the entire structure of Pennsylvania’s government could be changed. Dickinson argued this was too monumental a decision to be made by only a few. He strongly believed in the sovereignty of the people and that elected officials only represented the wishes of the populace. He put this proposition before the Assembly:

It was Dickinson’s position that only the people could change their system of government. This is not the stance of a conservative or monarchist, but the opinion of a man deeply concerned with maintaining his freedom. If the government or constitution could be changed arbitrarily by those elected to preserve it, the rights of the citizens were not safe from any infringmentviolations.

Dickinson realized there was a vital distinction between ordinary law and a constitution, whereas Assemblyman John Galloway, a true conservative, saw no difference. Galloway assumed Pennsylvania’s privileges and liberties were dependent on Parliament’s good will -- not on legal charters or precedent. Dickinson’s insistence that the government not be changed "without the almost universal consent of the people, exprest in the plainest manner" was a more radical position than many other Pennsylvanians were willing to take in 1764. This is one of the many principles Dickinson argued throughout his career that makes it too difficult to pigeonhole him with a neat political label.

The ideologies Dickinson employed to oppose the petition to Britain were the same beliefs he used to argue against both the taxes imposed by Parliament and the Declaration of Independence. Even though each situation was unique, Dickinson remained convinced that a man’s fundamental liberties could not legally be altered without his consent. This was the core principle upon whichthat Dickinson’s other political opinions hinged uponon. His closing arguments against the petition for a royalist government best expressed his political philosophy, "With unremitting vigilance, with undaunted virtue, should a free people watch against the encroachments of power, and remove every pretext for its extension." Throughout his career, Dickinson followed his own advice and worked diligently to ensure that Pennsylvanian and American liberties were safe from British infringement.

Having just fought the costly French and Indian War in the American Colonies, the British Parliament decided the Colonists should pay part of the cost of the war. In 1764, the Sugar Act became the first of many taxes designed to raise revenue in the Colonies for the British government. Parliament’s actions This outraged the Colonists’ sense of their liberties and rights as English citizens. Today, it is widely known that Boston and New England exploded in angry protest; and John Dickinson’s response to the taxes is often overlooked. At the time, it would have been impossible to ignore Dickinson’s contribution to the outcry against British taxation.

Dickinson wrote numerous pamphlets protesting the imposition of Parliament’s taxes and was popularly known as "the Penman of the Revolution." His pamphlets, especially "The Farmer’s Letters to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies," were widely circulated among the Colonies and earned Dickinson the acclaim of even such radicals as Samuel Adams. During the initial protests against British taxation, Dickinson was heralded as a great patriot and "the friend of Americans, and the common benefactor of mankind." This reputation remained with Dickinson until he opposed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, when many of his fellow Americans thought Dickinson turned his back on the principles he proclaimed in his pamphlets. This is not true. The ideals and opinions he held when lambasting Parliament for its treatment of the Colonies were the same standards that led him to oppose independence.

Dickinson’s pamphlets reveal a man fervently dedicated to preserving the American Colonies’ rights and liberties, but also a man who refused to react thoughtlessly. He reassured Great Britain that the American Colonies were loyal to the crown and would remain that way, but also threatened that if current policies of taxation continued the Colonies might see no choice but to openly rebel. The principles he defended in his pamphlets were radical, even as he urged the Colonies to avoid violence and insurrection. Instead, he recommended Colonists carefully guard their liberties through other means.

John Dickinson consistently maintained that the taxes imposed by Great Britain threatened more than American pocket books. The actual monetary inconveniences of the new taxes were minimal and Dickinson was more concerned with the detrimental effects Parliament’s acts had on American freedoms. Dickinson employed the powerful metaphor of the tree of liberty to drive his argument home, "The question is not ‘whether some branches shall be lopped off?’ The axe is laid to the root of the tree; and the whole body must infallibly perish, if we remain idle spectators of the work." With these words, Dickinson reminded the Colonists that all the liberties in their possession were threatened by Parliament, but that these freedoms could not be taken without the consent of the Colonies.

While some Colonists were calling for "no taxation without representation," Dickinson went a step further and proclaimed that Parliament had no right to tax the Colonies under any circumstances. The Colonists did not vote for members of the British Parliament; therefore, Parliament had no authority to tax the Colonies. Parliament should have no sway over the Colonies and the Colonies should have no power in Britain. Over a century of salutary neglect when "no statute was ever passed for the sole purpose of raising a revenue on the colonies" was all the proof Dickinson needed that the American Colonies had "the indisputable, the acknowledged exclusive right . . . to tax themselves." Since the Colonies had sovereignty over their own internal affairs, Dickinson determined that they also possessed "the same rights, that all free states have, of judging when their privileges are invaded, and of using all prudent measures for preserving them." Dickinson had no intention of trusting Parliament to remain respectful of American rights and liberties and urged his fellow Colonists to persistently defend those rights.

Dickinson strongly held that the majority in Parliament simply did not realize how detrimental the taxes were to the Colonies’ liberties and the prosperous trade between the New World and the Old. He believed there were only a few repressive ministers in Parliament pushing the various taxes forward. and that Tthe monarch was simply unaware of the transgressions against his loyal subjects in the American Colonies: "I do also believe, that not one half of the members of the house of commons, even of those who heard it read, did perceive how destructive it [taxation] was to American freedom." This is a large part of the reason why Dickinson insisted on nonviolence and non-separation from Great Britain. He did not think separationit would be necessary, since he but was convinced that Parliament would be reasonable and repeal the hated acts if the issue was explained to that body.

Even though Dickinson promoted action against the threatening tax acts, he also advised that all protests be cautious and prudent. Echoing his earlier declaration made during the royalist government fight in the Pennsylvania Assembly, Dickinson stressed the need for cool consideration before action was taken. To this end, he outlined several means that needed to be employed before resorting to violence. The first measure Dickinson proposed was that of writing letters and petitions to King George III. Dickinson distributed over a dozen pamphlets decrying the taxes.

Even as Dickinson pushed for action, he also cautioned against aggression. Dickinson fiercely detested mob violence and cautioned against aggression. ; hHe also thought it would weaken the Colonists’ protests. If the British government saw the Colonies as a hotbed of anarchy, it would respond with force to restore order. Dickinson thought it important that the Colonists present themselves as reasonable and articulate to:

He not only argued for nonviolent means, but also stressed the importance of remaining loyal British subjects. Dickinson was adamant that George III would be pleased by the Colonists’ protests: "The British nation . . . must, I am convinced, be better pleased to hear their children speaking the plain language of freemen, than muttering the timid murmurs of slaves."

Dickinson was prepared systematically to challenge every tax that Parliament passed, but was not willing to seek separation from the British Empire. He wanted it to be, "impossible to determine whether an American's character is most distinguishable, for his loyalty to his sovereign, his duty to his mother country, his love of freedom, or his affection for his native soil." Dickinson thought the best way to preserve American rights was to remain within the British Empire. While he acknowledged that Parliament’s taxes were oppressive and should be challenged, he also envisioned Britain as the freest nation in the world and stated: "there is no other people mentioned in history, that I recollect, who have been so constantly watchful of their liberty, and so successful in their struggles for it, as the English."

Although Dickinson adamantly opposed violence and separation, he did include some dire warnings to Britain in his writings. He cautioned Britain that it would be better to deal with the Colonists while they were still reasonable. He stressed that if Britain did not take action to correct the oppressive taxes, the Colonists might feel forced to address the problem themselves and, "A people does not reform with moderation." Even in the 1760’s, Dickinson could not completely rule out the possibility of violence and reminded Parliament what happened to Charles I when that monarch refused to listen to his subjects’ complaints.

Dickinson added strength to his threats warning by maintaining that: "Officers employed by the crown, are, while according to the laws they conduct themselves, intitled to legal obedience and sincere respect," but if the government stepped outside its constitutional bounds then people had the right to protest. Some called this rebellion, but Dickinson did not agree with that assessmenverdictverdict. To him, rebellion was unjustified and illegal; however, protecting one’s rights from destruction by the government was not only legitimate, but noble. In a brilliant stroke, Dickinson simultaneously reassured Great Britain that the Colonies would not seek independence and warned it could happen if the taxes were not repealed: "We never can be made an independent people, except it be by Great-Britain herself; and the only way for her to do it, is to make us frugal, ingenious, united and discontented." Dickinson’s interest in staying with Britain was based on his love for the ideals that Britain developed over the centuries and those liberties that evolved even further in America. Dickinson honestly believed the American Colonies would be safer and their rights better protected under British control.

In his efforts to guard his rights as an Englishmen, Dickinson had no intention of appealing only to Parliament’s love of liberty, but spoke to Britain’s pocketbook as well. If Parliament would not listen to arguments on the "rights of man," maybe it would listen to practicality. Great Britain and the American Colonies needed each other; it was completely impossible for one to be prosperous without the other:

He tried to warn Britain that if the current policy of taxation continued it would only restrict trade between the Colonies and their mother country. This, he hoped, was an argument the British would take to heart, but he knew it would not have the same pull on the Colonists. The raw materials of the Colonies were wanted throughout Europe; they could trade with almost anyone. So, Dickinson proposed a general boycott of British goods. He hoped the economic pressure would bring Parliament back to its senses.

Throughout the late 1760s and early 1770s Dickinson persistently called on the Colonists to act in defense of their rights, but he never went as far as the New England radicals. He remained a calming and restraining force in the Colonies and acted as the voice of reason. During this time, Dickinson was able to appease most radicals by calling for action, but did not go far enough for some. On the other hand, even his asking for restrained, peaceful protest could not satisfy conservative Tories. In their opinion, Dickinson was challenging the King’s authority and that was unpardonable. The lack of support Dickinson found among Tories makes it impossible to dismiss him as a conservative. This makes it difficult to group him with any particular segment of the colonial population.

Regardless of Dickinson’s political affiliation, he consistently worked to preserve the rights of the Colonies. During the years of taxation, Dickinson earned the respect and admiration of his fellow Colonists, because they saw him at the forefront of the American drive to secure the blessings of liberty. This changed when he refused to support independence and many Colonists began to denounce him as a traitor. As John Adams wryly noted, "Mr. Dickinson never can maintain his Popularity for more than two or three Years together." Ironically, the principles Dickinson argued in opposition to Parliament’s taxes were the same reasons why he resisted independence.

The Colonists continued to protest the taxes, but Parliament refused to listen, and by the 1770s violence erupted. The Boston Massacre and Tea Party rapidly radicalized colonial opinion,which reached its first peak at the Battle of Lexington and Concord in April, 1775.

When the Second Continental Congress reconvened in May 1775, the body found it essential to justify the Colonists’ taking up arms against British soldiers. Thomas Jefferson penned "The Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America . . . Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking up Arms" to explain colonial violence. Dickinson wrote his own draft and it was this version that was ultimately adopted by the Congress. In 1775, the majority of Congress was still willing to follow Dickinson’s lead; however, this would not be the case by the time the delegates were considering Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

By the summer of 1776, Dickinson lost his place at the forefront of the resistance movement and began to be seen as a hindrance to radicals such as John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Ironically, a petition to King George III authored in 1774 by Dickinson bears a striking resemblance to the Declaration of Independence. Each contained a lengthy list of grievances against the monarch which included: quartering soldiers in peacetime, abolishment of trial by jury, excessive fines, creation of a large bureaucracy over which the Colonists had no control, restrictions on trade, among numerous other complaints. Dickinson would even have agreed with the sanctity of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," as it was crucial to Dickinson "to attain some degree of certainty concerning our lives, liberties and properties."

With all these similarities it seems unreasonable that Dickinson opposed the Declaration of Independence. The answer to this quandary is found in the preambles to the documents. The Declaration famously opens:

On the other hand, Dickinson’s petition opened much more meekly, "We your majesty’s faithful subjects of the colonies . . . by this our humble petition, beg leave to lay our grievances before the throne" and ended just as respectfully:

In other words, the Declaration of Independence was a justification for revolution and the grievances were put forth to that end; whereas, Dickinson’s petition was a humble request to the King asking that the Colonists’ grievances be addressed. Obviously, Dickinson could not support the Declaration’s bid for independence while he favored reconciliation. This has caused many historians to unfairly catalog Dickinson as a Loyalist.

Historian Milton E. Flower is the main promoter of this theory and is largely responsible for Dickinson’s reputation as a conservative. According to Flower, while Dickinson may have begun his career as a radical, he ended as a conservative in 1776. Other historians, such as John Ferling, have borrowed Flower’s theme and have also portrayed John Dickinson as a "conservative revolutionary." Both historians assume that as a wealthy landowner and Quaker, Dickinson was innately conservative. Thus, in the public consciousness, Dickinson has become at worst a Tory who had little love for American liberties, and at best a man who out of cowardice or conservatism failed to grasp that Britain was oppressive and independence the only option. These are obvious conclusions, if one looks only at Dickinson’s actions with the benefit of hindsight, but a closer examination of his motives reveals that the first is not remotely true and as for the second, the worst that can be said of Dickinson is that he was too cautious.

Dickinson’s call for nonviolent protest and petition seemed outmoded to many of the New England radicals by 1776, but this did not mean Dickinson was any less concerned with protecting the Colonies. He was honestly convinced that security was to be found in law, not anarchy. To Dickinson this necessitated remaining within the British Empire.

Dickinson worked throughout the summer of 1776 to prevent Richard Henry Lee’s Resolution on Independence from coming to a vote. There were three parts to Lee’s Resolution:

In the furor and excitement that greeted this proposal, Dickinson again acted as the calm, cool voice of reason and advised his colleagues to consider the situation rationally and dispassionately. While other delegates focused primarily on the first component of the resolution and began to debate the question of independence with greater fervor, Dickinson attempted to draw their attention to the remaining sections calling for foreign alliances and a plan of confederation. Finally, as a nod to his objections, Dickinson was appointed to committees with the job of addressing those issues. Still he did not feel this was sufficient and continued to voice his objections to independence.

Dickinson knew that opposing independence would cost him much of his popularity and put him at odds with many of his friends, but as he wrote to General Charles Lee on July 25, 1776:

If Dickinson was still willing to defend his position two weeks after independence had been declared and he had already suffered the negative consequences of his decision, he was even more determined to risk his reputation to try to prevent separation from Britain.

On July 1, 1776, Dickinson stood to give his final argument against Lee’s Resolution on Independence. The vote was to take place the next day; this was his last chance to persuade the delegates of Congress that, "in popular commotions the party of wisdom and of equity is commonly found in the minority." Dickinson logically deconstructed every argument in favor of independence, but ultimately concluded that the American Colonies were not prepared for this "leap in the dark" and that if the chance were taken, the liberties he held dear would be lost. Thus, while he primarily opposed the timing, Dickinson was also certain that liberty and security could not be found in a bloody revolution. His opposition was twofold -- practical and philosophical.

As a former member of the Pennsylvania Assembly, Dickinson had first-hand experience with the lack of unity among the Colonies. As he understood the situation, Great Britain acting as the executive power was the only safeguard against dissolution:

Dickinson reviewed the history of the Colonies and realized that they only acted together when they were compelled by a crisis or common enemy. He had no reason to believe their cooperation would continue after the King’s authority had been removed. Without that unity, Dickinson feared the Colonies would collapse into chaos and anarchy. His unwillingness to take chances with the security of the Colonies is plainly reminiscent of his refusal to gamble with the happiness and liberty of Pennsylvania in 1764.

Great Britain did not just keep the Colonies safe from each other, but provided them with the prominence and protection needed for Americans to trade safely abroad. Dickinson pointed out that if the Colonists managed, though he thought it unlikely, to win their independence, they would be rid of not only Britain’s control, but also the respect that the name Great Britain brought. This would be detrimental to the Colonies’ welfare:

Although other delegates in Congress insisted that European powers would assist the Colonies in their revolution in order to humiliate and weaken Great Britain, Dickinson did not agree. He saw no reason why the monarchs of France or Spain who had colonial empires of their own would cheer a revolution of colonies against their mother country. This was not a precedent that France or Spain would want established. Even if one of these monarchs could be persuaded to help the Colonies, Dickinson asked, ". . . do you think these princes will not make you pay dear for the assistance with which they flatter you?" Since he believed the Colonies were not capable of standing alone, he saw dominance by one European power or another as the only possibility. Dickinson was highly distrustful of other European nations and was certain that life under British rule was preferable to French or Spanish control.

Besides his concerns over the practical matters of waging war against one of the most powerful nations in the world and setting up a new country, Dickinson’s political principles would not allow him to support independence. In his view, the Colonists had sent delegates to Congress to defend the Colonies and reconcile with Britain; therefore, Congress had no power or right to declare independence. Just as in 1764, Dickinson struggled to maintain the people’s right to determine their own form of government. Far from a conservative view, Dickinson’s insistence that the people decide the fate of the government distributed power far more widely than many delegates, John Adams included, were willing to allow. Also reminiscent of Dickinson’s fight in the Pennsylvania Assembly was his demand that independence not be declared except by a clear majority of citizens. Without this consent, he worried that support for the struggle against British oppression would be lost:

Dickinson argued that men willing to fight for their rights as Englishmen might not be willing to fight for independence. That was a dangerous step from which there was no going back and Dickinson did not think all Colonists would be willing to take that risk. He failed to realize that a determined minority could create a revolution and hoped that as long as the majority of Colonists favored merely a redress of grievances, revolution could still be averted.

By the summer of 1776, the battle at Bunker Hill had already occurred, so it might have appeared too late to oppose revolution, but at this point the struggle was still only a civil war to protest unjust taxes. Dickinson, although he abhorred violence, supported the civil war, but could not endorse revolution. As a lawyer, Dickinson revered the rule of law and desired to avoid anarchy. He thought if the Colonies fought a limited civil war, Great Britain would respond by answering the Colonists’ complaints in a fair and reasonable manner. Revolution was an entirely different matter. Referring to the English Revolution in the mid-seventeenth century, Dickinson reminded the delegates of the excesses caused in the violent overthrow of a government:

Dickinson sincerely thought it would be in the Colonists’ best interests to confine the struggle against Britain to an assertion of rights. Once independence was declared, Americans would "find themselves engaged in a cause rendered more cruel by such a Declaration.

Without a Declaration of Independence, Dickinson was convinced that "England will always prefer to found her power upon moderation and liberty rather than upon rigor and oppression." As a part of the British Empire, the American Colonies were valuable to Britain, but as independent states they were worthless. As long as the Colonists desired to remain under the King’s mantle, it would be in Britain’s best interest not to destroy them. However, faced with the prospect of losing its colonies, Britain would have no reason to act with moderation and would likely possibly devastate the Colonies in order to keep them under British rule.set an example for other colonies under British rule.

Despite Dickinson’s desire for reconciliation, he was not blind to the oppressions the Colonies suffered in the 1760s and 1770s:

His conviction that Britain was trampling the Colonists’ rights as Englishmen made it impossible for Dickinson to remain inactive. He organized and held the rank of colonel in the first militia in Philadelphia, "The Associators." Dickinson saw no contradiction between his willingness to fight and his desire for reconciliation. It was every citizen’s duty to fight for his rights and Dickinson declared that because of the repressive nature of Parliament’s taxes, "to accept them, would be to deserve them." Consequently, Dickinson encouraged civil war even as he opposed revolution.

Dickinson argued against revolution, not only because he did not want to see his beloved America destroyed physically, but because he was afraid of the effect anarchy would have on the ideals of liberty he cherished:

It was Dickinson’s opinion that the best form of government was a constitutional monarchy. To make this point, Dickinson drew on precedents set by English history:

Dickinson thought a monarch was needed to keep the majority from imposing its will on a powerless minority. It was through a king that governments found stability. Furthermore, he was certain that Britain had the best system of government in the world:

The perfect balance of government was to be found in the English Constitution and Dickinson did not understand why men such as Adams and Jefferson wished to throw that away.

Dickinson believed the Colonies would be freest under British rule; after all, "two hundred years of happiness furnish the proof of it . . . It is not as independent, but as subjects; not as a republic, but as monarchy, that we have arrived at this degree of power and greatness." He viewed the current troubles with Parliament as only temporary and was certain that once the Colonists’ grievances were addressed, the Colonies would resume their peaceful relationship with Britain.

Dickinson added one caveat, "The first wish of my soul is for the Liberty of America. The next is for constitutional reconciliation with Great Britain. If we cannot obtain the first without the second, let us seek a new establishment." Significantly, Dickinson only wanted reconciliation if the Colonists’ rights were maintained and if this was not possible, then he would consider independence. This stance lent credence to Dickinson’s argument that he merely opposed the haste with which Congress was deciding independence.

Finally, it was July 2, 1776, the day votes for the Resolution on Independence were cast. Dickinson knew his conscience would not allow him to vote for independence and yet he also realized the importance of unity and even unanimity at this crucial junction. Nearly ten years earlier Dickinson had avowed:

For Dickinson to now cast a dissenting vote would be to betray his own principles. He solved his quandary by riding out to take command of The Associators instead of attending Congress for the vote. John Dickinson was one of only two Congressional delegates to take up arms. He was willing to fight for an independence he believed would be ruinous, while the majority of men who advocated separation remained civilians.

John Dickinson opposed independence because he wished to protect Americans from the horrors that accompany revolution and was willing to risk his own life and property in order to guarantee that his country remained safe. This is hardly the action of someone who maintained a cowardly loyalty to Britain or acted only out of selfish motives.

Dickinson was an influential figure in the founding of the nation, but is often overlooked or passed over as a man out of touch with the times. Dickinson’s contemporaries accused him of treason and cowardice and historians have furthered that sentiment, dismissing his resistance to independence as innate conservatism or the self-interest of a wealthy landowner. Both parties have misjudged Dickinson and in doing so have lost a valuable piece of American Revolutionary history.

Dickinson was not a radical who was willing to charge headlong into revolution with little thought about the outcome nor was he a conservative who wished to establish direct royal control over America. The philosophy Dickinson defended throughout his political career was motivated by genuine love and concern for America’s safety and liberty. Yes, he was cautious and perhaps overly so, but not out of cowardice. He acted out of a belief that it was better to move with discretion and not leap blindly into the unknown.

He consistently and courageously acted to defend and strengthen the liberty of the American Colonies without regard for his own interests or reputation. By refusing to give in to popular pressure and adhering steadfastly to his principles, Dickinson exercised the liberties America was founded upon. Consequently, John Dickinson deserves to be remembered as an American patriot.

Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. "William Penn."