In revolutions, just as in the collapse of dams, it is a slow, steady process involving increasing pressure and a wearing down of structures. The combination of a historically absentee landlord (British king and parliament) coupled with a sudden renewed interest in the colonies, especially as a source of income, slowly eroded the bonds between Mother Country and the North America colonies.

That erosion was aided not only by the traditional rights of Englishmen — disallowed for the colonists — but by the increasing interest in the role of government and citizens explored by writers Locke, Montesquieu, and Voltaire, among others. After all, the Enlightenment’s tendrils stretched into all the areas of philosophical knowledge and understanding.

Current citizens often falsely assume that the revolutionary generation in the colonies was unlearned and uninformed. Neither is true. By 1760 — the time of the French and Indian War — the English colonies boasted one of the highest literacy rates in the world. White males in New England read and wrote at a 90-95% rate, while Southern rates were a bit lower at 70%. Females, equally and perhaps even more responsible for educating their children in the “ways of faith,” were estimated to have a literary rate of 60-65% across the colonies. Fascinating, right?

While many were probably limited in their sources of printed materials beyond The Holy Bible, colonial governmental leaders from the English town hall meetings to the hallowed halls of the House of Burgesses not only read well, but they were often highly educated and had sources that encouraged the reading of the newest and most influential books published in Europe.

Three of those authors found themselves influencing the rising tide of “self-government” among the Founding Fathers and Mothers: John Locke, the Baron de Montesquieu, and Voltaire. Ah, those who waxed wisely and helped change the world…

Now, I admit to being fond of the writings of England’s John Locke. After decades of wallowing in the philosophical mutterings of scores of Enlightenment writers, Locke’s clarity of thought and his assertions appeal to me. Truthfully, he espouses ideas with which I agree, and while I know that’s a dangerous weakness, I’m not alone in my affection for the scholar.

Locke wrote during a difficult period in English history — the conflict between the Stuart kings claiming “a divine right” to rule and a citizenry wearied and angered at their rulers’ ineptitude and a weakened parliamentary voice. Interestingly, Locke’s writings were not published until the Glorious Revolution and were then used to justify the removal of James II, the writing of the English Bill of Rights, and the reign of William and Mary. He wisely understood that an earlier publication would probably have ended his career and his life.

What did Locke assert? He argued against the concept of “divinely-ordained, hereditary and absolute monarchy.” Instead, he wrote that a more civilized society was possible when based on a “natural rights” theory and a presumed social contract between the governed and the governing. He argued that a legitimate government required the consent of the governed, and when that relationship was absent and rights were ignored or even threatened by uncontrolled power, the governed had the right to overthrow the government.

Contemplation of government’s role was not limited to the English with their traditions of the Magna Carta and common law. Indeed, the French philosophes living under often oppressive regimes of their own “divine right” kings explored the role of the citizen and government in their writings. Montesquieu and Voltaire’s writings found their way onto the desks of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, the English Thomas Paine, and others who pondered the colonial situation.

Montesquieu, the heir to an aristocratic French family, became a favorite of the colonial crowd by advocating for a separation of governmental power lest any one person should become “tyrannical.” He believed that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches should not only be separated but have the power to check the others, maintaining a balance of power. Sound familiar? He strongly advocated for the rule of law, against slavery — a less popular idea in the English colonies — and for a republican or representative form of government.

And Voltaire? He favored a governmental system in which a king’s power was limited, ideally by a constitution and a parliament. Voltaire also feared the relationship between religious institutions and the government; instead, he advocated for a “separation of church and state” that would allow and even encourage freedom of thought. One of his most powerful ideas was that the purpose of government was to “secure” individual liberties, including the freedom of speech and the abolition of “feudal classes” that determined individual roles in society based on position at birth, not talents, initiative, and work ethic.

Any of these ideas sound familiar?

As these concepts floated around the English colonies while the English crown and parliament attempted to control all aspects of colonial life after more than a hundred years of negligence, tempers flared and pens dipped in inkwells.

The mood from Georgia to New Hampshire was changing, and the fires were beginning to burn in Virginia and Massachusetts.