According to this MSN Encarta listing, the American Revolution was nothing more than “Colonial elites,” landholders and plantation masters, continuing their “rule at home,” but without outside interference. From there, the pursuit of “life, liberty, and property” still excluded, “White women” and “most white men without property,” and of course not to mention Native Americans and African American slaves. Hence, the implication is clear.
The above seems to suggest that the American Revolution was about nothing more than local elites tightening their grip on the lower-classes, the poor. Women, of course, were still second class citizens, and we cannot forget the irony of slavery and the so-called “egalitarian” American pledge. There was no redistribution of wealth, no equality for all, and if anything the gap between rich and poor increased.
According to historian Carl Becker (1873–1945), the Revolution was not just about “home rule” it was about “who” was to rule at home. Gordon S. Wood calls it the “most important” event in our nations history as it legally formed the union, but more importantly it “infused into our culture all of our noblest beliefs and ideals, in truth, all of what actually makes us a union.” Americans knew what they had accomplished and the freedom they had gained. When compared to Europe, where no one got a vote regardless of white men or black men, the foundation was laid for the greatest and longest lasting constitutional government, based on republican principles, ever established.
So two interpretations here: 1) Conservative, where the event is seen as really nothing to get excited about, and didn’t do enough to equalize women and slaves; 2) Radical, where the revolution is seen as an event that restructured American culture and society, and for the better, and set the groundwork for women suffrage and even black freedom. (Because we created a constitution that could be amended, and because the ideas were in place for true equality for everyone.)
Historians such as Howard Zinn and Gary B. Nash would be more in the #1 category, and would probably agree that the Revolution was nothing more than about “home rule” and colonial elites tightening their reigns on the lower-class America, ect.
Gordon S. Wood and probably Edmund S. Morgan, both, I think it fair to say would be in the #2 category. I know, going out on a limb here.
The Revolution was both destructive and constructive, Loyalists fled by the thousands leaving behind land and wealth. Property had been damaged and destroyed. The United States was bankrupt and had no credit. An entire government structure had been swept away, and a new one put in its place, and slavery was legally protected.
I think within this is a great opportunity to challenge students to decide, on their own, through research, the following question, Was the American Revolution “Conservative” or “Radical” in its nature and outcome? Lots of arguments on both sides.
Based on my own reading and research I have a very clear view of the Revolution and will expand on that in another post.
Also, I second Kevin’s comments concerning HBO’s miniseries “John Adams,” I am two episodes into it and am also enjoying it. Though I would have liked a couple of changes, I overall feel it is a well-done production and once again shows why HBO does probably the best job with historically based movies; e.g. “Band of Brothers.” They produce a motion picture (movie) quality production with great sets and good actors.
According to “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” the concern was America becoming totally bogus.
I just finished the John Adams series on DVD. I think that is this television at its best: a long format, high quality series. I mean the form, like Band of Brothers, or Brideshead Revisited, Pride and Prejudice. Multi-episode series, with a definite end.
If you look at the run up in Boston to the Revolution, the issues are small, but the implications tend to be big. Not Pearl Harbor or 9/11 or even Fort Sumter, but an escalation of events past the point of compromise. An accomondation to the British after the Intolerable Acts becomes an surrender of identity.
Chris,
I’m not so sure that the two points of view you mention are so far apart. On the one hand, I think it’s fair to say that in many ways the intent of the Revolution was about home rule, not about a dramatic change in the political or social structure. That change came, but to a large extent it was entirely unanticipated. It may seem obvious to us in hindsight that 18th Century Republicanism would lead to 19th Century democracy, but I don’t think it was apparent to participants at the time. Moreover, I don’t think that the Gordon Woods of the world disagree. They refer to the changes that the American Revolution ultimately wrought, but they don’t claim those changes were anticipated at the time.
For a well-argued discussion that emphasizes the conservative, home-rule, power-based nature of the revolution, I heartily recommend Theodore Draper’s A Struggle for Power.
Finally, on the HBO Adams miniseries, I loved it, which surprised me. I found the book utterly vapid. In addition, I’ve really disliked Paul Giamatti in the past, but I have to give him credit: he was superb. Laura Linney has been a favorite of mine since Breach (which is a must-see, outstanding), and she did just fine in a difficult role. The Thomas Jefferson actor — whoever he was — also did a great of job of conveying just how annoying he was. (I know, I know, them’s fighting words.)
My one question: the series portrays Adams as having significant qualms about signing the Alien and Sedition Acts. True, or not? Basis?
elektratig (sorry I do not know your name), excellent question concerning Adams and his portrayal as having “qualms” concerning signing the Acts.
I first looked through the Adam’s Family Papers online (which are not all of Adam’s letters of course) and there were only 4 references: Link:
http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/search.cfm?start=1&hi=on&tag=text&archive=all&query=%22Alien%22&submit=Search
In these letters he seems indifferent: neither supportive nor unsupportive. Actually, the most ardent supporter of them seems to be Abigail.
Joseph J. Ellis states that “Adams went to his grave claiming these laws never enjoyed his support,” and that the chief sponsors where the “extreme” Federalists in Congress. (”Founding Brothers,” p.191). In his citations he mentioned, among others, James Morton Smith’s “Freedom’s Letters: The Alien and Sedition Laws and American Civil Liberties” (1956). I have not read Smith.
Esmond Wright in his “Fabric of Freedom, 1763-1800,” wrote that Adam’s “deplored them,” the Alien and Sedition Acts (p. 225).
I find no solid evidence to support either, that he happily signed the laws or that he struggled with his decision at all. I guess this is one of those “interpretive” events of history?
According to John Ferling’s biography (the first that comes to hand), John Adams tended to believe that the President shouldn’t get involved in making laws; that was the role of Congress. Therefore, he didn’t introduce these bills or push for their passage. He also signed them without quibble.
Only later, when the laws became unpopular, did Adams say he’d seen problems with them and blame Alexander Hamilton for their passage. (Hamilton, in fact, wrote that they were unnecessary and overboard.)
Abigail Adams and her nephew, who was Adams’s secretary, both wrote strongly in favor of a Sedition Act. Sedition during an Adams administration meant, of course, saying bad things about the Adams administration. Abigail didn’t like that, while John probably always assumed people were doing so.
I recently read a book called Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights by Thomm Hartman. He explains the American Revolution as the first instance of a group of people rising against a corporation becoming too powerful (East India Trading Company). It was an interesting to read about the war from a fresh new perspective, I would recommend the book for any fan of history.
J.L. I couldn’t agree more.
Jason, I have not read Hartman’s book… but I question the thesis, though it indeed is an interesting perspective. It seems to me that Hartman ignores that the reaction the Colonists had to East India Trading Company was more of a symptom than a cause. But obviously without reading the book…
C
I’m so tired of the “apologist” propaganda. When ever the “rich, aristocratic, slave owning” arguments come up, no one discusses the fact that our forefathers had no guarantee they would win. If the revolution was lost, they would have all been hung. George Washington spent himself into debt funding the Colonial Army out of his own pocket (oh by the way, didn’t he free his slaves in his will, as alot of forefathers did?). Let’s not forget that a large part of the American forces were (shocker) working class people and farmers (militia or citizen soilders) WHO DIDN”T EVEN GET PAID! Let’s also not forget that originally, the intenet of our forefathers was not to fight for independence, rather only to fight for their rights as British citizens guaranteed to them UNDER THE LAW. Only when it became obvious that they would never be treated as equals to their brethern back in England, after repeated attempts to resolve these issues LEGALY and PEACEFULLY, did they revolt. Another thing people seem to forget (or maybe their not taught this by their elitist liberal profesors) is that the forefathers in the northern colonies wanted to abolish slavery from day one. However, they needed the support of the south and unfortunately compromises were made that eventually led to the Civil War (how many white people died in that war to abolish slavery and by the way it was the DEMOCRATIC south that instituted decades of segeragration until REPUBLICANS legislated civil rights?) One more fact elitist leave out is that had our forefathers had not saw the futility of the “Articles of Confederation” did they create the US Constitution ( 6 years after the Revolutionary War ended- kind blows the “ruling class” argument out the window) which has made all the social changes throught the years possible. One more closing note “redistribution of wealth” comes right out of the Marxist playbook. If you want a socialist country, then do me a favor and move to Europe. If any of this is news to you, then stop watching Keith Olberman, climb out of your mother’s basement (so you can stop blogging), and for godsakes, go to the library and READ A BOOK! (I sugest you start with “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine, “The Federalist Papers”, then maybe you could understand the two things you should read the most, The Declaration of Independence and the US Constituton!)
Keith, welcome, thank you for posting…. look around this blog I think you will enjoy yourself.
Chris