The Suppression of Wilson’s Critique of Blackstone and the Consequences for Law, Sovereignty, and Governance
James Wilson’s critique of William Blackstone is one of the most systematically ignored aspects of American legal history. Wilson, drawing from Thomas Reid’s Common Sense Realism and Richard Hooker’s scholastic natural law tradition, rejected the positivist and voluntarist metaphysics embedded in Blackstone’s jurisprudence. While Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England became the dominant legal text in both Britain and America, Wilson saw in it a dangerous intellectual framework that undermined self-governance and led to a legal system detached from objective truth.
Blackstone’s legal philosophy, rooted in the epistemology of Locke and Hobbes, defined natural law not as a participation in eternal reason, but as a system fundamentally based on self-preservation and human will. In this framework, sovereignty is not bound to objective moral truths but rather to the will of those who hold authority; whether that be a monarch, a parliament, or later, in the American context, the judiciary. Wilson saw this as an intellectual poison that would eventually destroy true liberty and philosophy. He warned that if law became dependent on shifting human interpretations rather than an external moral standard, despotism would arise not through brute force, but through an “artful use of superiority in politics” and the manipulation of ideas in metaphysics.
This ideological shift has had profound consequences. Blackstone’s legal philosophy, which Wilson sought to counter, has provided a direct pathway to the rise of legal positivism, the erosion of natural rights, and the redefinition of sovereignty away from popular authority toward judicial and bureaucratic control.
The Intellectual Subversion of Law Through Blackstone’s Metaphysics
Blackstone’s conception of law originates not from participation in divine reason, but from human constructs of authority. In contrast to Wilson’s vision, which saw law as a reflection of moral truth accessible through reason and conscience, Blackstone’s jurisprudence reduced law to a function of political will. His philosophy ultimately serves to justify centralized authority under the pretense of legal order.
By rejecting the scholastic notion that law is discovered rather than created, Blackstone aligned himself with the nominalist and voluntarist traditions that had already begun to dominate English legal thought. His framework established that sovereignty belonged not to the people under Natural Law but to the state as the supreme arbiter of law. This effectively placed legal interpretation above legal reality, allowing those in power to redefine law at will.
Wilson understood that this was not just a theoretical concern; it had real consequences for governance. If Blackstone’s framework became dominant, it would lead to a legal order where sovereignty could be gradually removed from the people and placed into the hands of “experts” who controlled interpretation. Over time, law would no longer be a restraint on power, but rather, a tool used by those in power to justify their actions.
This is precisely what has happened. The dominance of Blackstone’s jurisprudence in American legal education has led to a system where:
Courts interpret laws based on evolving social consensus rather than fixed principles.
Legal positivism has supplanted natural law, making law a tool of power rather than a reflection of justice.
Sovereignty has been removed from the people and placed in the hands of legal experts, judges, and bureaucrats.
Wilson’s warning that Blackstone’s framework contained the seeds of epistemic and political tyranny has been fully realized in modern governance.
The Erosion of Sovereignty Through Judicial Supremacy
By severing law from objective reality, Blackstone’s philosophy enabled the rise of judicial supremacy; the idea that courts, rather than the people or their representatives, hold the final say on legal interpretation. This has allowed a system to develop where:
Judicial interpretation takes precedence over legislative intent.
The Constitution is treated as a “living document” rather than a fixed legal framework.
The will of the people is increasingly bypassed in favour of bureaucratic administration and legal “expertise.”
This has resulted in a massive centralization of power under the judiciary and regulatory agencies. The American legal system, rather than protecting the natural rights of the people, now functions as a managed system of governance where laws can be reshaped to suit the evolving preferences of those in power.
Wilson foresaw this danger. He recognized that Blackstone’s metaphysical assumptions; grounded in nominalism, voluntarism, and empiricism, would lead to a legal order detached from both natural reason and the will of the people. By contrast, Wilson’s framework ensured that sovereignty remained with the people under the guidance of reason, conscience, and moral truth.
The suppression of Wilson’s critique has allowed legal interpretation to become an instrument of control rather than a pursuit of justice. The public is now trained to accept judicial decisions as authoritative, even when they directly contradict constitutional principles and the moral order.
The Role of Skepticism in Undermining Legal and Moral Order
Wilson explicitly rejected the skepticism of Locke and Hume because he recognized that their epistemology would ultimately lead to a denial of objective legal and moral truth. If law is not tied to a metaphysical order, then it becomes nothing more than a function of power.
Hume’s skepticism, which denied that real knowledge of morality was possible, and Locke’s empirical framework, which detached law from intrinsic reality, together provided the intellectual justification for the legal positivism that now dominates modern governance. Wilson understood that skepticism, when applied to law, destroys the very possibility of justice.
If there is no objective moral order, then law is reduced to whatever those in power decree it to be. This has created a system where:
Public morality is dictated by evolving social consensus rather than universal principles.
Legal precedent is used to justify increasingly expansive interpretations of state power.
The people are conditioned to believe that law is whatever courts determine it to be, rather than a reflection of pre-existing natural rights.
Wilson saw this as the greatest threat to liberty; not the outright imposition of tyranny, but the slow erosion of justice through the manipulation of legal interpretation.
Why Wilson’s Warnings Have Been Suppressed
Wilson’s rejection of Blackstone and skepticism has been intentionally erased from legal education and public discourse because it undermines the legitimacy of the current legal and political system. If his arguments were widely known, they would expose the ideological fragility of legal positivism and the ways in which modern law has been severed from truth.
By suppressing Wilson, legal scholars have ensured that the public does not question judicial supremacy.
By omitting his critique of Blackstone, they have allowed legal positivism to be treated as the default framework of governance.
By erasing his rejection of skepticism, they have ensured that law is no longer seen as a reflection of reason, but as an evolving social construct.
The result is a society where law functions as an instrument of control rather than a protection of natural rights.
Restoring Wilson’s Vision as a Countermeasure to Legal Subversion
The only way to restore true sovereignty, self-governance, and legal integrity is to reinstate Wilson’s framework as a counterweight to the legal positivism that now dominates American law. This requires:
Rejecting the assumption that law is an evolving construct rather than a reflection of fixed principles.
Dismantling the judicial supremacy model and restoring constitutional interpretation to its original constraints.
Reintroducing Wilson’s critique of Blackstone into legal education, ensuring that students understand the metaphysical assumptions behind different legal frameworks.
Unless Wilson’s warnings are restored, law will continue to function not as a safeguard of liberty, but as a means of redefining sovereignty away from the people and into the hands of an unaccountable legal elite. The longer his teachings remain buried, the further American law will drift from its foundation in natural rights and objective truth.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/375601966_The_Philosophy_of_Thomas_Reid_as_the_Foundation_for_James_Wilson's_Theory_of_Popular_Sovereignty
Share this post