Dr. Samuel B. Hoff is a George Washington Distinguished Professor Emeritus and an internship director at Delaware State University. He has taught and published extensively on America’s founding period.
Gout. That unfortunate form of arthritis — leaving the victim prone to sudden attacks of pain, swelling and tenderness — may be a reason why Declaration of Independence super signer John Hancock is not regarded in the top echelon of Founding Fathers. He should be, not only for his role in ensuring America’s independence from Britain but for leading his home state of Massachusetts through constitutional ratification and implementation.
After becoming an orphan at age 7, John Hancock was raised by his uncle, Thomas Hancock, whose House of Hancock group of merchant businesses exerted major influence in New England. After assuming control of his uncle’s economic enterprise, John became a respected voice in American resistance to British policy in the colonies. For example, he participated in protests against the 1765 Stamp Act and the 1767 Townshend Act, which resulted in the total repeal of the former and the partial repeal of the latter. Further, he was charged with, but exonerated of, smuggling activities. Finally, he helped calm matters in Massachusetts after key events, including the 1770 Boston Massacre and 1773 Boston Tea Party.
For his selfless service to the cause of freedom, John Hancock was repeatedly elected to important posts by his fellow citizens. Before the Revolution, he was chosen as moderator of the Boston town meeting; he was selected to serve in both chambers of the Massachusetts legislature; he was president of the Massachusetts Provisional Congress; and he was elected to represent the colony in the Second Continental Congress.
Hancock’s colleagues in the Second Continental Congress selected him as president and reelected him twice. It was during this period, after the American Revolution began, that the Declaration of Independence was drafted and signed, most famously by Hancock.
He continued to be chosen for various offices over the duration of the conflict, including becoming Massachusetts’ first free governor.
Overlooked in Hancock’s stellar record are his contributions to an independent national government. First, he ensured his state’s approval of the Articles of Confederation. Second, he was reelected as Massachusetts’ governor in 1787 after resigning two years earlier, bringing stability to the region after a rebellion crippled the state for months. Third, though Hancock’s recurrent gout prevented him from attending the Philadelphia constitutional convention, he was chosen as president of the Massachusetts ratifying convention and helped his state endorse the revised national government. Finally, his reputation was rewarded in the initial presidential election under the new federal system, with four electoral votes coming from three states.
While Hancock’s debilitating gout certainly derailed his activities and service, there are admittedly other possible explanations for his second-tier status among the first generation of free statesmen. For one, he had no children who survived to adulthood, so there was no extended family to spread his legacy. There is no physical evidence, as his Beacon Hill residence was demolished. Unlike other contemporaries, he left few personal writings for scholars to examine. And, for better or worse, he lived in the same state as two more well-known persons, both named Adams.
Perhaps the recently renewed interest in John Hancock will elevate him to the stature he deserves. Just this year, two biographies of “King Hancock” — as he was labeled by both backers and bickerers — have been published. But whether he is rejuvenated as a true Founding Father or not, Hancock’s helmsmanship in approving America’s most important historical and governing documents is unassailable.
Reader reactions, pro or con, are welcomed at civiltalk@iniusa.org.
