Radicalism Of The American Revolution example essay topic

The term 'revolution' has typically been applied to different forms of political change, such as the American War of Independence, the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution. It has been applied to describe changes, whether rapid, violent or far-reaching, in the political, social or economic structure of society. In the War of Independence, colonists broke free from their colonial ties and established a sovereign, independent state. During the French Revolution an absolute monarchy was overthrown from inside opposition and a popular rising. In the Russian Revolution, those seeking social and economic changes in line with what can simply be described as a socialist model, overthrew a repressive monarchy. The debate over the revolutionary nature of the period before, during and after the war has long been debated.

In order to prove or disprove that a 'revolution' occurred, these social, political and economic changes must be discussed. What constitutes one's definition of a real revolution also has much to do with the outcome of this essay. Many theories of revolution exist, but they do not always explain what happened in America. For example, one assumed necessary ingredient of revolution is widespread discontent, yet the average American was in general as well off as anyone in the world at that time.

Yet Revolutions do tend to have certain things in common. Of necessity they start with discontent of some sort, but it is not always clear to what extent wrongs are real or perceived. It is interesting to note that four major revolutions (the English, American, French & Russian) all began with government trying to get more money out of the people. In order to assess how 'revolutionary' the struggle for independence was, I shall assume that a 'revolution' demands violence (although not always typical, for example during the 'Industrial Revolution'), and a large degree of permanent change in both social and political organisation and structures, with resulting after-effects. By the middle of the eighteenth century, the British colonies had already developed a cohesive form of political independence.

However there was a fundamental difference between the way that that Britain and the colonies saw each other. The colonies expected protection and a form of independence from Britain, however Britain sought to keep the colonies subservient, especially after the Seven Years War. The new colonies needed to be defended, and the larger overseas empire also needed a more coherent and strict control of its vast colonies. The threat of Spain and France had been removed from the British colonies, and they emerged from the war feeling closer to Britain, but expecting respect and independence. As Jack.

P Greene points out: 'the several colonies had become what Edward Shills has referred to as "pockets of independence" within the transatlantic imperial polity... they possessed by 1750 virtually all of the conditions necessary for self-governing states' The colonies saw their assemblies and lower houses equivalent to the English Parliament. Yet English Government always viewed the colonies as subordinate provinces. Years of a laissez-faire policy under Walpole directed towards the colonies had left-underlying tensions unsolved. George Grenville's policies were to integrate and defend the new territories, and take a firmer control over the American colonies. Greene describes how the emergence of 'stable, coherent, effective, and acknowledged local political and social elites' combined with the emergence of a set of viable governing institutions with elected lower houses of assembly, gave the colonies the independence and self-confidence to express their grievances against Britain. The first time the constraints of empire became more intimidating for the colonies was after the Seven Years War.

Despite a renewed patriarchy for the mother country in America, in Britain there was a rise in determination to keep the newly extended colonies under tighter control. What began as colonial resistance to the new reforms in imperial policy became a real challenge, and the colonials actually achieved what the mother country had been trying to avoid, an independent state. Parliament's 'taxation without representation' was undoubtedly one of the most influential factors in inspiring the colonists to rebel in the years leading up to 1776. Taxes such as the 'Sugar Act', the 'Currency Act' and the 'Stamp Act' of 1765 aroused much protest. Just as the colonies had been getting used to what they saw as political independence, equivalent to that in Britain, suddenly Britain sought to take firm control. The Stamp Act was an internal tax, and the colonies saw it as undermining their right to grant taxation.

The Townsend Duties were external, but by then the forces of rebellion, even 'revolution' were in full swing. The petition against the Stamp Act in October of 1765 was the first formal cry against 'New Imperialism'. The Tea Act of 1773 caused a complete boycott of tea by the colonies. This boycott was extremely important, because it unified the colonies in a mass popular protest. The boycotts and rioting at this stage in the revolutionary era do not appear to constitute 'revolutionary' actions, as there was similar rioting in England at the time relating to social and economic dislocations in a rapidly changing economy. However, Richard M Brown assesses the importance that violence and rioting played in the struggle for independence, the years preceding, and the legacy of violence left in America.

He not only states that the 'very origins were violent', but that: 'the American Revolution was one of the most progressive events in the history of the human race' Brown calls the years 1670 to 1700 the 'first American revolutionary period', due to the upsurge in rioting and instability at this time, including Bacon's rebellion. The importance of these riots depends on the importance of rioting in revolutions as a whole. The rebellions did, however, have fundamental importance in bringing together a united opposition to Britain. Brown identifies 'thirty (or forty-four) riots that were anti-British in one way or another' in the period 1760 to 1775.

It appears that the origins were indeed violent, which would also suggest 'revolutionary', and the era was 'marked by a series of violent outbreaks', such as the Stamp Act riots in 1765, the Boston Massacre, and fighting at Lexington and Concord. If violence is an important facet of a revolution, then the American struggle for independence certainly constitutes a revolution. William. E. H Lecky considers the violence of the revolution as an important part of the revolutionary experience: 'the force of the influences which were impelling large classes to violence... accustoming them to an unrestrained exercise of power and breaking down among them salutary respect for authority' The Boston Massacre was used as pro-revolutionary propaganda and spread the injustices of British rule across the colonies. Paul Revere painted images of the Massacre to highlight British tyranny and stir up anti-British sentiment among his fellow colonists. Samuel Adams, one of the most effective radicals, told stories of oppression, corruption and sin in England, he also lead the protest against the Stamp Act, founded the Sons of Liberty, and was the principal organizer of the Boston Tea Party.

He organised a 'committee of correspondence', which openly publicised the complaints colonials had with Britain, and other colonies followed Massachusetts' example in forming political organisations of their own. It could be said that if not for the legacy of religious and political ideas in the colonies, the spirit of 'revolution' would never have had the potential to exist. Bernard Bailyn emphasizes the influence that these ideas had on the way that colonials viewed the new Imperial policy: 'the fear of a comprehensive conspiracy against liberty throughout the English-speaking world [which] lay at the heart of the Revolutionary movement' Ironically, the Enlightenment philosopher John Locke, who had a significant influence in prompting the colonies to revolt against Britain, was English himself. Locke was an extremely influential man, and the extent of his support alone is enough to show how 'revolutionary' the era was.

Locke opposed the idea that rulers are absolute in their power. According to the preface of the published edition, appearing after the Glorious Revolution, the treatises were written: 'to center to the world the people of England, whose love of their just and natural rights, with their resolution to preserve them, saved the nation when it was on the brink of slavery and ruin. ' Thus, was popularized the idea of government by compact. Sovereigns had a duty to protect the rights (life, liberty, and property) of their subjects, and if rulers abrogated this trust, subjects could legitimately withdraw their allegiance and unite to form a new government. This is a sure example of 'revolutionary' thought. Traces of Locke's ideas can even be found in the Declaration of Independence.

In January 1776, Thomas Paine published 'Common Sense', a brochure that strongly served to rally the colonists to independence. Paine's writing convinced many of his countrymen to disown the monarchy and replace it with a republic. By spring of that same year, all royal governors had been ousted and patriots replaced British authority in the colonies. The colonists carried out the argument with the British Government on two levels, formal and informal. The formal level consisted of the declarations, resolutions, and petitions produced by town meetings, colonial legislatures, and intercolonial congresses. On the informal level were the politics of riot and demonstrations carried out by colonial radicals.

These simply set in motion the practise of building a national political framework and a national political community, which was of course, the most 'revolutionary'. The struggle for independence meant a struggle to define what the new nation would be, by framing instruments and institutions of government, revising the laws of the individual states, and policing the loyalties of the colonial people. By enforcing demands of loyalty to the 'revolution', the colonists created the idea that one could choose one's citizenship and political loyalty. In the process of establishing loyalty, oaths and test of patriotism, the creation of 'Loyalists', shows new developments in the 'revolution': 'There is no better testimony to the newness of the forces that were shaping the Revolutionary movement than the failure of the loyalists to control them.

' Tens of thousands of Loyalists fled the United States at the end of the war for Britain, Canada or the Caribbean, which indeed suggests that the new regime was 'revolutionary' as it instilled fear. Sociologist Martin Lipset believes that the American War of Independence was indeed a real 'revolution', and seeks to prove this by comparing it to the French Revolution, considered a 'real' revolution by many scholars. Many more people were political 'emir " es from America than from France. Also although the American leaders were not populists, an egalitarian image of the 'revolution' emerged over time and became part of the American political religion and the American creed. It is a value system whose basic content today stems from egalitarian conceptions of the Declaration of Independence. The new Constitution can be described as 'revolutionary' because the new nation was now the largest in the Western world except Russia, and the conventional wisdom of the time taught that no republican government could survive if extended over too large an area.

The historical importance of this is summarised by Anthony McFarlane: 'For the first time in the history of the Euro-American world, colonial peoples had permanently overthrown the government of their parent power through a revolutionary struggle. ' American Independence in itself was a 'revolutionary' idea, merely because it had never happened before. It is still disputed just how much American Independence affected social and economic conditions in America. In the 1920's, J. Franklin Jameson asserted that the American Revolution had to be understood as a social movement, and that it promoted widespread democratisation in a variety of ways, by removing legal restrictions on land ownership and shattering colonial patterns of deference and elite authority. Although many historians would dispute particular elements of Jameson's thesis, Gordon S. Wood maintains that American democratisation was a step that took place despite the expectations of the leaders of the revolution, who wished to preserve an elitist politics of republican leaders benevolently guiding the "common sort". The American struggle for Independence certainly was a struggle, but without a doubt it was a success.

The final draft of the Constitution, in which the Federal Convention of 1787 spent four months behind closed doors writing, was revolutionary in itself. The new charter authorised a new, untried chief executive, the President, and a new, experimental federal judiciary. It created not only a new national government, but also a national political community: 'It was a struggle to progress from dependent colonies to independent states, from monarchy to republic, from membership in an extended empire... to participation in a singly federal nation' Although it has often been argued that this was 'inevitable', it could also be argued that the extent of change was not enough to describe it as a true revolution'. Wood's introduction reinforces the idea that has persisted that the American Revolution was "conservative", but when viewed in terms of social change, it was "as radical as any in history". Bibliography Primary Sources: J. Locke, 'Two Treatises of Government' in Peter Laslett, ed., A Critical Edition with an Introduction and Apparatus Criticus by Peter Laslett, (Cambridge, 1964) T. Paine, Common sense; addressed to the inhabitants of America A new edition, with several additions... To which is added, an appendix, together with an address to the people called Quakers, (London 1791) Original Painting at web Secondary Sources: S.G. Kurtz and J.H. Hutson (Eds), Essays on the American Revolution, (University of North Carolina Press 1973) The New World Encyclopaedia, (Colour Library Books, Surrey 1988) W.E.H. Lecky, The American Revolution: 1763-1783, (New York 1912) B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, (Cambridge 1967) A. McFarlane, The British in the Americas 1480-1815, (New York 1992) S.M. Lipset, Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada, (New York 1991) J.P. Greene, The American Revolution, Its Character and Limits, (New York University Press 1987) G.S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, (New York 1991) H.M. Ward, The American Revolution: Nationhood Achieved, 1763-1788, (New York 1995) Internet Sources: web

Bibliography

Primary Sources: J. Locke, 'Two Treatises of Government' in Peter Laslett, ed., A Critical Edition with an Introduction and Apparatus Criticus by Peter Laslett, (Cambridge, 1964) T.
Paine, Common sense; addressed to the inhabitants of America A new edition, with several additions... To which is added, an appendix, together with an address to the people called Quakers, (London 1791) Original Painting at web Secondary Sources: S.G. Kurtz and J.H. Hutson (Eds), Essays on the American Revolution, (University of North Carolina Press 1973) The New World Encyclopaedia, (Colour Library Books, Surrey 1988) W.
E.H. Lecky, The American Revolution: 1763-1783, (New York 1912) B.
Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, (Cambridge 1967) A.
McFarlane, The British in the Americas 1480-1815, (New York 1992) S.
M. Lipset, Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United States and Canada, (New York 1991) J.
P. Greene, The American Revolution, Its Character and Limits, (New York University Press 1987) G.
S. Wood, The Radicalism of the American Revolution, (New York 1991) H.
M. Ward, The American Revolution: Nationhood Achieved, 1763-1788, (New York 1995) Internet Sources: web.