aoguds.cc 
①編按：又稱為《強制法令》（Coercive Acts），指英國國會在一七七四年透過的一系列殖民地法令。該法奪走玛州的自治權及多項權利，是引發美國革命的重要因素。·
1. 這是埃德蒙．摹忆近年在Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. and Morton White, eds., Paths of American Thought (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1963), 11–33發表的一篇文章。·
2. Samuel E. Morison, ed., “William Manning’s The Key of Libberty,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XIII (1956), 208.·
3. Edmund S. Morgan, “The American Revolution: Revisions in Need of Revising,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XIV (1957), 14.·
4. William Vans Murray, Political Sketches, Inscribed to His Excellency John Adams (London: C. Dilly, 1787), 21, 48.·
5. Daniel Leonard, The Origin of the American Contest with Great-Britain . . . [by] Massachusettensis . . . (New York: James Rivington, 1775), 40; Douglass Adair and John A. Schutz, eds., Peter Oliver’s Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View (San Marino: Huntington Library, 1961), 159.·
6. Simeon Baldwin, An Oration Pronounced Before the Citizens of New-Haven, July 4th, 1788 . . . (New Haven, CT: J. Meigs, 1788), 10; [Murray], Political Sketches, 48; David Ramsay, The History of the American Revolution (Philadelphia: R. Aitken & Son, 1789), 1, 350.·
7. Thomas Paine, Letter to the Abbé Raynal . . . (1782), in Philip S. Foner, ed., The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine (New York: Citadel Press, 1945), II, 243; John Adams to H. Niles, February 13, 1818, in Charles Francis Adams, ed., The Works of John Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, 1850–1856), X, 282.·
8. William Pierce, An Oration, Delivered at Christ Church, Savanah, on the 4th of July, 1788 . . . (Savannah, GA: James Johnston, [1788]), 6; Enos Hitchcock, An Oration; Delivered July 4th, 1788 . . . (Providence, RI: Bennett Wheeler, [1788]), 11.·
9. Petition to the King, October 1774, in Worthington C. Ford, ed., Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Offi ce, 1904–1937), 1, 118.·
10. Samuel Williams, The Natural and Civil History of Vermont . . . (Walpole, NH: Isaiah Thomas and David Carlisle Jr., 1794), vii, 372–373; Pierce, Oration . . . 4th July, 1788, 8.·
11. Moses Coit Tyler, The Literary History of the American Revolution, 1763–1783 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1897), I, 8–9.·
12. For a bald description of the assumptions with which this generation of historians worked, see Graham Wallas, Human Nature in Politics, 3rd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1921), 5, 45, 48–49, 83, 94, 96, 118, 122, 156.·
13. Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution (New York: Macmillan, 1935), x, viii.·
14. While the Progressive historians were attempting to absorb and use the latest scientifi c techniques of the day, nonbehaviorists in government departments and others with a traditional approach to political theory—men like Andrew C. McLaughlin, Edwin S. Corwin, William S. Carpenter, Charles M. McIwain, and Benjamin F. Wright—were writing during this same period some of the best work that has ever been done on Revolutionary constitutional and political thought. However, because most of them were not, strictly speaking, historians, they never sought to explain the causes of the Revolution in terms of ideas.·
15. Carl L. Becker, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1922), 133, 203, 207.·
16. Quoted in Philip Davidson, Propaganda and the American Revolution, 1763–1783 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1941), 141, 150, 373.·
17. Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Prelude to Independence: The Newspaper War on Britain, 1764–1776 (New York: Knopf, 1958), 34. For examples of the scientifi c work on which the propagandist studies drew, see note 1 in Sidney I. Pomerantz, “The Patriot Newspaper and the American Revolution,” in Richard B. Morris, ed., The Era of the American Revolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939), 305.·
18. Davidson, Propaganda, 59; Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 20.·
19. Davidson, Propaganda, xiv, 46.·
20. Schlesinger, Prelude to Independence, 44; Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., New Viewpoints in American History (New York: Macmillan, 1922), 179.·
21. Edmund S. Morgan, “Colonial Ideas of Parliamentary Power, 1764–1766,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., V (1948), 311, 341; Edmund S. Morgan and Helen M. Morgan, The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution, rev. ed. (New York: Collier Books, 1963), 306–307; Page Smith, “David Ramsay and the Causes of the American Revolution,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XVII (1960), 70–71.·
22. Jack P. Greene, “The Flight from Determinism: A Review of Recent Literature on the Coming of the American Revolution,” South Atlantic Quarterly, L XI (1962), 257.·
23. This revisionist literature of the 1950s is well known. See the listings in Bernard Bailyn, “Political Experience and Enlightenment Ideas in Ei ghteenth-Century America,” American Historical Review, LXVII (1961–1962), 341n; and in Greene, “Flight from Determinism,” 235–259.·
24. Greene, “Flight from Determinism,” 237, 257; Thad W. Tate, “The Coming of the Revolution in Virginia: Britain’s Challenge to Virginia’s Ruling Class, 1763–1776,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XIX (1962), 323–343, esp. 340.·
25. Bailyn, “Political Experience and Enlightenment Ideas,” 339–351.·
26. Bernard Bailyn, ed., assisted by Jane N. Garrett, Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750–1776 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1965–), I, viii, 60, x, 20. The 200-page general introduction is entitled “The Transforming Radicalism of the American Revolution.”·
27. This is not to say, however, that work on the Revolutionary ideas is in any way fi nished. For examples of the reexamination of traditional problems in Revolutionary political theory, see Richard Buel Jr., “Democracy and the American Revolution: A Frame of Reference,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XXI (1964), 165–190; and Bailyn’s resolution of James Otis’s apparent inconsistency in Revolutionary Pamphlets, I, 100–103, 106–107, 121–123, 409–417, 546–552.·
28. Smith, “Ramsay and the American Revolution,” 72.·
29. Morgan, “Revisions in Need of Revising,” 13.·
30. Adair and Schutz, eds., Peter Oliver’s Origin, ix. In the present neo-Whig context, Sidney S. Fisher, “The Legendary and Myth-Making Process in Histories of the American Revolution,” in American Philosophical Society, Proceedings, LI (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1912), 53–75, takes on a renewed relevance.·
31. Bailyn, Revolutionary Pamphlets, I, 87, ix.·
32. [Moses Mather], America’s Appeal to the Impartial World . . . (Hartford, CT: Ebenezer Watson, 1775), 59; [John Dickinson], Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies (Philadelphia: William and Thomas Bradford, 1768), in Paul L. Ford, ed., The Writings of John Dickinson (Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Memoirs, XIV [Philadelphia: Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1895]), II, 348. Dickinson hinged his entire argument on the ability of the Americans to decipher the “intention” of parliamentary legislation, whether for revenue or for commercial regulation. Ibid., 348, 364.·
33. See Herbert Davis, “The Augustan Conception of History,” in J. A. Mazzeo, ed., Reason and the Imagination: Studies in the History of Ideas, 1600–1800 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 226–228; W. H. Greenleaf, Order, Empiricism and Politics: Two Traditions of English Political Thought, 1500–1700 (New York: University of Hull/Oxford University Press, 1964), 166; R. N. Stromberg, “History in the Eighteenth Century,” Journal of the History of Ideas, XII (1951), 300. It was against this “dominant characteristic of the historical thought of the age,” this “tendency to explain events in terms of conscious action by individuals,” that the brilliant group of Scottish social scientists writing at the end of the eighteenth century directed much of their work. See Duncan Forbes, “ ‘Scientifi c’ Whiggism: Adam Smith and John Millar,” Cambridge Journal, VII (1954), 651, 653–654. While we have had recently several good studies of historical thinking in seventeenth-century England, virtually nothing has been done on the eighteenth century. See, however, J. G. A. Pocock, “Burke and the Ancient Constitution—A Problem in the History of Ideas,” Historical Journal, III (1960), 125–143; and Stow Persons, “The Cyclical Theory of History in Eighteenth Century America,” American Quarterly, VI (1954), 147–163.·
34. [Dickinson], Letters from a Farmer, in Ford, ed., Writings of Dickinson, 388.·
35. Bailyn has noted that Oliver M. Dickerson, in chapter 7 of his The Navigation Acts and the American Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1951), “adopts wholesale the contemporary Whig interpretation of the Revolution as the result of a conspiracy of ‘King’s Friends.’ ” Bailyn, Revolutionary Pamphlets, I, 724.·
36. Morgan, “Revisions in Need of Revising,” 7, 13, 8; Greene, “Flight from Determinism,” 237.·
37. Edmund S. Morgan, The Birth of the Republic, 1763–89 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), 51.·
38. Greene, “Flight from Determinism,” 258; Morgan, Birth of the Republic, 3.·
39. Bailyn, Revolutionary Pamphlets, I, vii, ix.·
40. Ibid., vii, viii, 17.·
41. J. G. A. Pocock, “Machiavelli, Harrington, and English Political Ideologies in the Eighteenth Century,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XXII (1965), 550.·
42. Sir Lewis Namier, England in the Age of the American Revolution, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1961), 131.·
43. Ibid., 129.·
44. Bailyn, Revolutionary Pamphlets, I, 90, x, 169, 140. See Hannah Arendt, On Revolution (New York: Viking, 1963), 173: “American experience had taught the men of the Revolution that action, though it may be started in isolation and decided upon by single individuals for very different motives, can be accomplished only by some joint effort in which the motivation of single individuals . . . no longer counts. . . .”·
45. See Sir Lewis Namier, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, 2nd ed. (London: Macmillan, 1961), 16; Sir Lewis Namier, “Human Nature in Politics,” in Personalities and Power: Selected Essays (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), 5–6.·
46. Bailyn, Revolutionary Pamphlets, I, 22. The French Revolutionaries were using the same group of classical writings to express their estrangement from the ancien régime and their hope for the new order. Harold T. Parker, The Cult of Antiquity and the French Revolutionaries: A Study in the Development of the Revolutionary Spirit (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1937), 22–23.·
47. The relation of ideas to social structure is one of the most perplexing and intriguing in the social sciences. For an extensive bibliography on the subject, see Norman Birnbaum, “The Sociological Study of Ideology (1940–60),” Current Sociology, IX (1960).·
48. Jacob Duché, The American Vine, A Sermon, Preached . . . Before the Honourable Continental Congress, July 20th, 1775 . . . (Philadelphia: James Humphreys, 1775), 29.·
49. For recent discussions of French and Puritan Revolutionary rhetoric, see Peter Gay, “Rhetoric and Politics in the French Revolution,” American Historical Review, LXVI (1960–1961), 664–676; Michael Walzer, “Puritanism as a Revolutionary Ideology,” History and Theory, III (1963), 59–90. This entire issue of History and Theory is devoted to a symposium on the uses of theory in the study of history. In addition to the Walzer article, I have found the papers by Samuel H. Beer, “Causal Explanation and Imaginative Re-enactment,” and Charles Tilly, “The Analysis of a Counter-Revolution,” very stimulating and helpful.·
