“A nullity” and “we declare these acts void“
This was the bold conclusion about British Acts that Thomas Jefferson came to in his powerful 1774 pamphlet, A Summary View of the Rights of British America.
Written nearly two years before the Declaration of Independence, it foreshadowed ideas Jefferson would later develop further. He asserted several fundamental principles that underpin the American constitutional system, including the sovereignty of states within a broader union, and the view that usurpations of power are null and void.
Sovereignty and Self-Governance
At its core, Jefferson’s pamphlet was a response to what he and many colonists saw as overreach by the British government. By the mid-18th century, tensions between the colonies and Britain were escalating, largely driven by economic policies that sought to restrict colonial trade and impose taxes and regulations. Yet, Jefferson’s argument in A Summary View went beyond economics, framing the conflict as a constitutional crisis that called into question the very legitimacy of Parliament’s authority over the colonies.
Jefferson began by asserting that the colonists were “free inhabitants” with natural rights—rights that no government could take away. He contended that the original settlers of North America had established their societies with the intention of governing themselves under laws of their own making, not under the dictates of a distant Parliament. In his view, the colonies had formed independent governments that were only loosely connected to Britain through a shared monarch.
This idea of the colonies as sovereign states tied to Britain only by the crown was revolutionary at the time. Jefferson argued that Parliament had no right to interfere in the internal affairs of the colonies, claiming that the colonists had never consented to submit themselves to its authority. In doing so, Jefferson laid the groundwork for the later American constitutional principle of state sovereignty within a broader union.
British Usurpations and Economic Grievances
Much of Jefferson’s pamphlet focused on the specific actions taken by Parliament that violated the rights of the colonies. He identified a range of British laws and policies that he viewed as unjust encroachments, many of which were rooted in mercantilism – a system designed to benefit the British economy at the expense of the colonies. Under this system, the colonies were treated as mere sources of raw materials and tax revenue for Britain.
Jefferson highlighted several key acts of Parliament that restricted colonial trade and industry. For instance, he criticized the Navigation Acts, which required that goods be transported on British ships, and the Hat Act of 1732, under which “an American subject is forbidden to make a hat for himself of the fur which he has taken perhaps on his own soil.” He called this “an instance of despotism to which no parallel can be produced in the most arbitrary ages of British history.”
He also included the Iron Act of 1750, prohibiting the production of iron in the colonies. Under this law, Jefferson lamented the fact that “besides commission and insurance, we are to pay freight for it to Great Britain, and freight for it back again, for the purpose of supporting not men, but machines, in the island of Great Britain.”
To Jefferson, these laws were not only economically harmful, but also violated the natural rights of the colonists to engage in free trade, and he viewed Parliament’s interference in this right as an illegitimate exercise of power.
Declaring Acts “Null and Void”
One of the most significant assertions Jefferson made in A Summary View was that the acts of Parliament were, in fact, null and void.
“We do not point out to his majesty the injustice of these acts, with intent to rest on that principle the cause of their nullity; but to shew that experience confirms the propriety of those political principles which exempt us from the jurisdiction of the British parliament. The true ground on which we declare these acts void is, that the British parliament has no right to exercise authority over us.” [Emphasis added]
Jefferson was pointing out that it wasn’t so much the negative impact of these acts that made them problematic. He was asserting a more fundamental principle. Whether “good” or “bad,” these acts were null and void simply because they crossed a line in the sand and usurped power that rightly belonged to the people of the colonies.
Criticism of the Crown
While much of Jefferson’s ire was directed at Parliament, he did not spare the British king from criticism. He accused him of abusing power by dissolving colonial legislatures, refusing to call them back into session, and sending large bodies of armed forces to the colonies. Jefferson viewed these actions as a violation of long-standing British traditions and customs, asserting that the king was applying his power in ways that were unprecedented and unjust.
One of Jefferson’s sharpest critiques was aimed at the king’s refusal to allow the colonies to limit the importation of enslaved people from Africa. Jefferson argued that the colonies had attempted to abolish the international slave trade but were thwarted by the king, who prioritized the profits of a few over the rights of human beings.
A Vision for the Future
Despite his harsh criticisms of both Parliament and the Crown, Jefferson concluded A Summary View by expressing a desire for reconciliation. However, this peace could only be achieved if Britain acknowledged the colonies’ rights to self-governance and revoked the unconstitutional laws that had sparked so much unrest.
In many ways, A Summary View of the Rights of British America was a precursor to the Declaration of Independence. It articulated the fundamental principles that would later form the foundation of the American Revolution and the U.S. constitutional system: the sovereignty of the people, the illegitimacy of usurped power, and the idea that governments exist to serve the people – not the other way around.
By asserting that British acts were a “nullity” and “void,” Jefferson also foreshadowed the same principles he asserted more than two decades later in the Kentucky Resolutions of 1798. That is, when government assumes “undelegated powers,” a “nullification of the act is the rightful remedy.”
