The Significance of The Great Awakening in Influencing the Start of The American Revolution
Starting in the early eighteenth century, a movement called The Enlightenment swept across the greater part of Europe. This movement, later dubbed the “Age of Reason,” would yield a plethora of new scientific, political, and religious ideologies. At the very center of these newfound ideas was a single authoritative power: reason. Among all influential enlightenment thinkers, reason gave legitimacy to ideas, both new and old. With this new and radically different standard, the political and religious landscape turned into one of turmoil as authoritative figures struggled to adapt. Religiously, deism quickly became more and more favored. Meanwhile, the traditional Christian denominations handled this change in a variety of ways. Though many vouched for religious toleration, skepticism pulled religions in many different directions. Some bridged enlightenment ideas with Christian doctrine, using reason as support for its beliefs. However, most completely denounced or revolutionized principal teachings and practices, using reason to question God’s attributes and the path toward salvation. As European enthusiasm for religion began to die down, the beginning of secularization arose.
The Enlightenment then sailed crossed the Atlantic Ocean, landing at the forefront of colonist ideology. A new sense of religious toleration and political freedoms were derived from this movement, later affecting education, literature, and art. And of course reason resided at the core of it all. Despite this, Christianity still remained a central part of a colonist’s life. But just as religious enthusiasm was fading in Europe, church participation in the colonies dwindled. To many colonists, religion grew stale as practices became more complicated and demanding. Religious skepticism derived from enlightenment thinking warded away some colonists. The long distances between the colonists and their churches made going a major inconvenience to others. They would much rather chase wealth than God. The colonists desired a more relaxed and simpler method of worship. Beginning in the 1730s, the colonists got just that through a religious revival called the Great Awakening. Major ministers like Jonathan Edwards and and George Whitefield presented a new outlook on Christianity. They emphasized a new view of sin, confession, forgiveness, and faith. Most importantly, they encouraged a personal connection to God. This greatly simplified worship and other practices, making it more accessible to the average colonist. Additionally, the emotional appeal of sin and forgiveness for salvation ignited a sense of urgency among Christian colonists everywhere. The lively and dramatic preachings of Edwards and Whitefield even attracted non-Christians to their sermons. The effects of the Great Awakening were seen all throughout colonial America. Conversions and church participation skyrocketed, many highly acclaimed colleges and universities were formed, and a sense of unity connected the colonies. However, an increasing amount of historians have begun to add the Revolutionary War to this list. It is to this extent that I, along with many historians, disagree. Its alleged effects that would result in the Revolutionary War are riddled with bias and misinformation. Also, it’s fundamental teachings have nothing to do with the actions taken during the war. Finally, there were many other events that more directly lead to the war. While the American Enlightenment did have some part in causing the American Revolution, it is a far cry to call it a major contributor.
When first assessing the legitimacy of any claim, the first place to analyze is the source. This case is no different. Though no one argues that the Great Awakening did take place, its magnitude and subsequent extent of effects are questionable. Those who do argue that its effects were grand first point to primary sources. Letters written at the time are most often referenced. However, these sources simply can not be taken by face value. Letters vouching for the Great Awakening’s positive effects most overwhelmingly come from either the key pastors or the farmers who attended their sermons. In one such account on May 30, 1735, Jonathan Edwards recounts the “many Hundred Souls in Northampton, and the Neighbouring Towns and Villages of the County of Hampshire.” It is generally agreed upon (from other letters and modern textbooks) that this Northampton revival was a notably large event, or at least larger than most. Yet absolutely no contemporary accounts of this revival can be found today. One would expect that the New England Weekly Journal would have recounted something of this presumably notable event. However, research has yielded nothing. Not a single other form of pamphlet or newspaper article can be discovered about the of the Northampton revival (Lambert, 1995). This is particularly peculiar considering even older events of lesser importance have been accounted for much more thoroughly. Similarly, letters from the farmers that attended these types of events described the pastors with oddly angelic qualities. They also tended to describe the amount of people in a hyperbolic fashion, making their accounts largely unreliable. Looking to letters from those who opposed the Great Awakening would also not be fruitful as the vast majority of them were attacking their core teachings and not accurately describing their impact (Lambert, 1943). As such, the effects of the Great Awakening that were drawn from these sources may not be accurate. So, those effects may have not come to influence the American Revolution as much as many believe.
Another source of its overstatement stems from its appeal to historians. In turn, the historian’s conclusions are brought to school curriculum and those who study from it. It is no secret that historians seek to explain and decode human history through techniques like cause and effect. In attempt to explain and connect the shift of American identity to the Revolutionary War, the Great Awakening was a prime culprit. Theoretically, any religious revival of national influence would have created a great sense of unity and hope that would potentially spark a revolution. Even if the Great Awakening did not have an effect as grand as that theoretical example, drawing unfounded conclusions to connect them anyway would be logical and easy, especially to students. In terms of education, historian Jon Butler (1982) argues that the “increased emphasis on social history” has proven “especially useful in interpreting early American society to twentieth-century students” (p. 306). With historians generally supporting it, school curriculums have also made these same easy and generous connections. As such, teachers and students accept these as truths, never bothering to critically analyze its validity. As a result, generations of scholars overstate its effects, and in turn, overstate its involvement in the American Revolution.
Even if overstated, it is difficult to argue that the Great Awakening had no effect in causing the Revolutionary War. In fact, even the most skeptic historians would agree that it did have its effects. However, considering the other major causes of the American Revolutionary War, the Great Awakening may have not even been necessary. Of course, many historians would disagree. They maintain that this extreme shift in societal roles and cultural unity is attributed to the Great Awakening, seeing it as the mechanism for the social change vital to the Revolution (Rossel, 1970). However, prominent writers like John Locke and Thomas Paine more clearly connect a societal change with ideas congruent with the ideas that fueled the war. Starting with John Locke’s enlightenment-inspired virtues of life, liberty, and property, the colonists clinged to these as a formula for government. This revolutionized the way that most colonists viewed Britain’s control over them. These are the same aspirations that the colonists would later rally behind going into the Revolutionary War, even putting it in their Declaration of Independence. John Locke not only brought a sense of political unity, but it was also in directly conflict with British rule. Similarly, Thomas Paine’s Common Sense and The American Crisis played vital roles in the decision to declare independence. With these two pamphlets, Paine managed to unify a large portion of colonists under a one political view. Most importantly, this view is directly against Britain, causing a very clear connection. Conversely, the unity brought upon by the Great Awakening would only indirectly impact the colonist’s view of Britain.
Others may argue that the Great Awakening advanced the development of both religious and political liberty through its teachings. This would later turn into turmoil between the colonists and the British after being denied such political liberty (Capers, 1930). But again, other factors contribute much more strongly and clearly to this cause. For example, events such as the Proclamation Line of 1763, the Seven Years War, and the plethora of taxation acts planted roots anger and mistrust. This constant mistreatment (from a colonist’s viewpoint) would eventually fester into a volatile relationship between the colonies and Britain, resolvable only through war. Compared to the influence of the Great Awakening’s teachings, the relation between Britain’s actions and the Revolutionary War is much more clear and influential.
In fact, it is arguable that the Great Awakening’s fundamental teachings had anything to directly do with principals favoring the Revolutionary War in the first place. Definitively, the Great Awakening simply vouched for a personal relationship of God with emotionally charged views of heaven, hell, sin, and salvation. This directly lead to a religious revival, new Christian denominations, a divided Protestant church, new doctrine focused colleges, and more slaves embracing the gospel. In no sermon did Edwards or Whitefield encourage the war against tyranny or the expressing of disdain against acts against natural rights. Though entirely possible, it would be a stretch to logically connect a purely religious message to a united political upheaval. Even if a valid connection could be made, other alternative events would surely make this connection weak in comparison.
As proof, there is not even a correlation between revivalists and those who supported the Revolutionary War. Some revivalists remained on the fence while others even defended the crown and became loyalists. And those that supported the War did not necessarily become a patriot because of their involvement in the revival (Kidd, 2009). For all we know, their decisions could have been economically or emotionally driven. This indicates that the teachings of the Great Awakening had little to no influence in an individual’s attitude toward the Revolution.
Extent of influence aside, America is no stranger to social reform and upheaval. The civil rights movement of the mid-20th century and the Great Awakening expresses just that. In both, key influential leaders inspire a new outlook on an old situation. In terms of the Great Awakening, massively popular and influential pastors (Edwards and Whitefield) aimed to revive the religiously stagnant colonies, shifting their view of God from distant to personal. In terms of the civil rights movement, a massively popular and influential pastor (Martin Luther King Jr.) aimed to revive a liberty deprived African American population, shifting America’s view of blacks from rightfully discriminated against to an equally capable citizen that deserves rights. Both movements met backlash from those who saw a more traditional world. In the end, their supporters rallied around a new central idea, eventually leading to a change in society.
To an extent, the Great Awakening’s involvement in the start of the American Revolution is mostly undeniable. However, after analyzing its primary sources, comparing it to other causes, and making clear its fundamental teachings, the extent to which the Great Awakening’s effects caused the Revolution is bigger than most believe. However, this highlights a more important theme, a theme that will effect how we understand our history, and a theme that will effect many generations to come. That theme is the importance of critical analysis. A study of history should not all be an objective recounting of events for a unit test that aligns with state standards. In order to raise a generation of academically diverse and capable students, a school curriculum can not be set in stone. Interpretations of events are fundamentally subjective to everyone. So, the interpretation of a handful of historians should not dictate the way all students think. Instead, it should guide further discussion and lead people to their own reasoned view. Allowing students to critically analyze evidence and share those viewpoints allows for a more comprehensive understanding of that event, of broader history, and of history yet to come.