The Dutch Roots of American Independence
On 30 May 2026, historian Dr Geerten Waling—journalist for Elsevier and chairman of the Dutch Independence Foundation—spoke to us about his new book, America, That Is Us, which explores the similarities between the Dutch Revolt and the American Revolution. Are these similarities merely coincidental, or do they reveal something more profound about the Dutch contribution to the modern democratic constitutional state? Despite an ocean, a cultural divide, and two centuries separating the two events, there are compelling reasons why the Dutch Act of Abjuration (1581) bears such a striking resemblance to the American Declaration of Independence (1776), Waling argues in his book. Accordingly, the discussion centred on the founding documents of liberty, the forgotten link between the Dutch Republic and the American Founding Fathers, and the significance of historical awareness for citizens today.
What did we discuss?
The central argument of Waling’s book is that the Dutch contribution to the emergence of the modern democratic constitutional state has been systematically overlooked. In his view, the Dutch Revolt was not merely a national episode but an important intellectual and constitutional point of departure for the American Revolution. In international historiography, this influence has largely been overshadowed by English thinkers and events, despite considerable evidence of a much deeper connection between the Dutch Republic and the United States.
Waling began by reassessing the Dutch Revolt. Contrary to the way it is often portrayed, it was not a radical revolution that created an entirely new political order, but rather an attempt to restore existing rights and liberties. The rebels appealed to the medieval contract between ruler and subjects: the sovereign was expected to provide security and good government,
whilst the subjects, in return, paid taxes and owed their loyalty. According to the States General, Philip II and his predecessors had violated this contract through the centralisation of power, religious coercion, and taxation without consent. Consequently, they had forfeited their subjects’ obedience.
The Act of Abjuration of 1581 constitutes the constitutional expression of this principle. It declares that a ruler exists to serve his subjects and that he loses his legitimacy when he behaves as a tyrant. The deposition of Philip II did not lead to the appointment of a new absolute ruler; quite the opposite occurred. The States General assumed governmental authority and shared it with the Stadtholder, whilst the throne remained vacant. According to Waling, this reflects an early modern form of popular sovereignty: political authority is not unconditional, but depends upon the manner in which it is exercised.
The American Revolution from
a Dutch Perspective
According to Waling, this constitutional logic reappeared almost two centuries later during the American Revolution. For many years, the British colonies had enjoyed a considerable degree of self-government, but under George III their autonomy was increasingly curtailed. Taxes were imposed without representation, legal proceedings were transferred to London, and troops were quartered without consent. As had previously occurred in the Low Countries, these developments were followed by petitions, unsuccessful attempts at negotiation and, ultimately, the conclusion that the sovereign had failed in his obligations towards his subjects.
Waling pointed out that the Act of Abjuration and the Declaration of Independence share a remarkably similar structure. Both documents begin with a catalogue of grievances, describe how attempts at reconciliation failed, and conclude that the ruler has lost his legitimacy. According to Waling, this does not necessarily mean that the American Declaration was directly based on the Dutch Act. No definitive proof—a "smoking gun"—has ever been found. Nevertheless, the combination of textual similarities, shared patterns of argumentation, and historical contacts makes indirect influence highly plausible. In addition, research suggests that an English translation of the Act of Abjuration circulated in the American colonies at an early stage.
Waling illustrated this argument by referring to Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense, which rapidly succeeded in mobilising widespread support for independence. According to Waling, the pamphlet bears not only substantive but also rhetorical similarities to William of Orange's Apology. Both texts address the people directly, challenge the legitimacy of the sovereign, and advocate independence in a clear and persuasive manner.
A Forgotten Intellectual Transmission
It is precisely this indirect influence, Waling argues, that has received insufficient attention in historical scholarship. Historians have generally sought the intellectual origins of the American Revolution in the English tradition of the Glorious Revolution (1688) and the writings of John Locke. Waling does not dispute their importance, but points out that Locke himself spent many years in the Dutch Republic. His political thought developed, at least in part, in an environment where thinkers such as Grotius and Spinoza were active and where a comparatively high degree of religious freedom prevailed.
Finally, Waling referred to other indications of Dutch influence. The Pilgrim Fathers—the first Puritan settlers—travelled from England to North America via an extended stay in Leiden, during which they adopted, amongst other things, the Dutch institution of civil marriage. Administrative practices
and cultural traces, including Dutch words and institutions in what later became New York, likewise demonstrate that this transfer consisted not only of abstract ideas but also of concrete practices.
None of these examples constitutes conclusive proof on its own. Taken together, however, they present a consistent picture in which the Dutch Republic was far more than a coincidental predecessor. It served as an important intellectual and political point of reference for the world in which the American independence movement emerged. Waling hence emphasised that political ideas do not shape history by themselves. They must be translated into compelling narratives capable of engaging ordinary citizens. In his view, the Founding Fathers were above all practical statesmen; the intellectual building blocks of their revolution had been developed earlier and were subsequently adapted to American circumstances.
What may we conclude?
Waling’s objective is historiographical: to demonstrate that the Dutch contribution to the emergence of the modern democratic constitutional state has been systematically underestimated. The similarities between the Dutch Revolt and the American Revolution are therefore not an end in themselves but serve as evidence supporting this broader argument. They show that the Dutch Republic was not only a successful experiment in self-government, but also an important source of constitutional ideas that later took on new form across the Atlantic.
According to Waling, restoring this historical perspective is not a matter of national pride or shame, but of historical understanding. A society that understands the origins of its political institutions and liberties is also better able to appreciate how they came into being and why they deserve protection. For precisely that reason, the Dutch roots of the modern democratic constitutional state deserve a more prominent place in our collective memory.