American revolution

Noundou Christian

17/10/2014

Hist210

Kallamani Trevor

1st essay

After reading through and examining deeply the two texts, I found that they both have elements of truth that are unquestionable, and support their arguments. However, they are also claims that I totally disagree on. Most of the people talked about the american revolution as an armed conflict that lasted eight years from 1763 to 1776. One would tell you that it was a civil war between American and british royalty. This same one would tell you that it is a rebellion against the colonial authorities, on insurrection against Charles II and monarchy. Yes it is more or less a mix of all this. But for people like me who are not historians, further information need to be shown up and put forward in order to have a clear opinion and maybe think outside the box. The first quotation from The Radicalism Of The American revolution by Gordon, accerts that "Equality was in fact the most radical and most powerful ideological force let loose in the Revolution,"  tha "no country in the Western world has ever undergone such massive changes in such a short period of time" that " Within decades following the Declaration of Independence, the United States became the most egalitarian nation in the history of the world"… which is according to historical  facts and documents is partially true and mostly false.  Indeed, the New restraining act forbidding any trade between the colonies and any other countries than Great Britain in 1775 is the last straw. Since 1763, and the royal proclamation, the english parliament has not stopped passing laws and acts that would have the consequence to weak more and more the lower classes. The reason is all simple: The british government needs money to finance the war against France, so they expected the colonies to provide them these money. The Quartering act 1765, the Stamp act congress 1765 or the townshent acts, just to cite the most famous, raised this feeling of deception to the colons so that, several conflicts burst between the two sides. The boston massacre in May 5th 1770 for lot of people was a proof of the cruauty and tiranny of the britains. All this contributed to arise class anger all around the colonies.

The rich elite was ruling the colonies in the name of england, and Thomas Hutchinson was the symbol of this elite. Soon after, the conflict turned to be the conflict between the pro-british elite and poors.  In Boston, philadelphia, New jersey, New-york, the Great God Absolute grew up rapidly at a point that conservative loyalists sympathic to england were no longer safe. "The economic grievances of the lower classes mingled with anger against the british and exploded in mob violence" said Howard Zinn in A People's History of the American Revolution: How Common People Shaped the Fight for Independence. All what the population wanted was more democracy in taxes, and be represented in the policy making.  As this other quote from Howard Zin suggests, "Mechanics were demanding political democracy in the colonial cities: open meetings of representative assemblies, public galleries in the legislative halls, and the publishing of roll-call votes, so that constituents could check on representatives. They wanted open-air meetings where the population could participate in making policy, more equitable taxes, price controls, and the election of mechanics and other ordinary people to government posts".  People did not really want revolution and here is the point where I disagree with Gordon Wood when he says "Equality was in fact the most radical and most powerful ideological force let loose in the Revolution, ". Even far after the war began, most of the colons still hoped for a reconciliation with the UK. As evidenced the Olive Brand Petition. This petition was adopted by the Second continental congress on July 5 1775. The Olive Banch was a final attempt to avoid a terrible war between the thirteen colonies and Great Britain. John Dickinson and his followers, not to say the majority of the congress was in favor. But the letter arrived to the king the same time as the  a confiscated letter by john Adams in which he expressed his disapproval of the Olive Branch. However, it is here that I get closed to the mind of Edmun Morgan mind thinking: " The fact that the lower ranks were involved in the contest should not obscure the fact that the contest itself was generally a struggle for office and power between members of an upper class: the new against the established. "

The struggle for office and power between members of an upper class was in fact the most radical and most powerful ideology let loose in the revolution. Indeed when we see deeply, we see find that anger was the trigger of the war but poor people were not the one pulling the strings. "The men who engineered the revolt were largely members of the colonial ruling class " (Carl Degler).  This statement suggest that they were simple puppets. Town meetings where often organized and lower class like in boston for exemple "use the town meeting to vent their grievances" ( Carl Zinn), so local leadership saw in this rising of contestation a way to break the links with the England and takeover the lands, the political power and the profits. For Gary Nast "They were keenly aware of the declining fortunes and the resentment of ordinary townspeople, was mirroring as well as molding popular opinion " (qtd. in A People's History of the American Revolution: How Common People Shaped the Fight for Independence 2). They were the ones a the head of the meetings, in order to mold laboring-class opinion and launch mob actions. The Boston Caucus, the Boston tea party, The Sons Of Liberty , The Committee of Correspondence … were all led by by the American leaders. The purpose was to use the mob energy against England. Pauline Maier in her book From Resistance to Revolution, stated that "The officers and committee members of the Sons of Liberty were drawn almost entirely from the middle and upper classes of colonial society." In New-port, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Virginia, South Carolina… all the leaders and people favorable for independence were all involved in "small but respectable business ventures, as their aim was to broaden their organization to develop a mass base of wage earners" said Howard Zinn reporting a contemporary writer words… We can see that revolution had nothing to do with the poor seeking of equality, but was essentially the richs’ willing of enrichment. As this statement from a Virginan orator belonging to the rich elites suggests "Are not the gentlemen made of the same materials as the lowest and poorest among you? . . . Listen to no doctrines which may tend to divide us, but let us go hand in hand, as brothers…" , they had to persuade the lower classes to joint the cause, the revolution. Even when the war began, people were not so motivated to make it. Those involved were or blackmailed of drafted by force. "Our country men have all the folly of the ass and the passiveness of the sheep…They are determined not to be free… If we are saved, France and spain must save us "
Alexander Hamilton, from a letter written at Ramapo, New Jersey, June 30,1780, to Lt. Col. John Laurens, in Harold C. Syrett, ed., The Papers of Alexandar Hamilton, Vol.2, pp. 347-348
In a People Numerous and Armed by John Shy, he said that mechanics, sailors, and some others "grew weary of being bullied by local committees of safety, by corrupt deputy assistant commissaries of supply, and by bands of ragged strangers with guns in their hands calling themselves soldiers of the Revolution." For him a fift of the population were treasonous, while for Adams  a third opposed, a third in support, a third neutral . Even if I find it a bit exaggerated when he says "the dispute between Great Britain & the Colonies, I know nothing of it ", this statement from Bunker hill, an American Lieutenant reveals a lot about the maneuvers the colonial militia used to draft people and the level of knowledges of certain people about the motives of the war: "I was a Shoemaker, & got my living by my Labor. When this Rebellion came on, I saw some of my Neighbors got into Commission, who were no better than myself. I was very ambitious, & did not like to see those Men above me. T was asked to enlist, as a private Soldier ... I offered to enlist upon having a Lieutenants Commission; which was granted. I imagined my self now in a way of Promotion: if I was killed in Battle, there would be an end of me, but if any Captain was killed, I should rise in Rank, & should still have a Chance to rise higher. These Sir! were the only Motives of my entering into the Service; for as to the Dispute between Great Britain & the Colonies, I know nothing of it". The Continental Congress that was governing the colonies through the war was dominated by rich people and all of them had business and family links , whereas the military force was mainly composed of poors, reluctant, neutrals… "Tyranny is tyranny lest it come where it comes" shouted the rioters to protest against the system of substitute used by riches to avoid the war ( They paid 5 pounds). In contrary laws were passed to push people to join the front. In connecticut, shy says is his book that "the mechanism of their political conversion was the militia". In other words, by pushing people to engage, they are endoctrined, brainwashed in the name of the national cause, then finally believe it.

In the decades following the the war, the United states went through little or no significant changes to support the idea that they became the most egalitarian nation in the history of the world.The new constitution voted in all the states from 1776 until the 1780’s did not differed so much from the previous ones. On the economic and political field, changes -and not improvements were done. However, it was little and mainly benefited to the colonial elites. In a micro point of view most of the constitutions that were voted were based in the idea that the constituent power belongs to the people. However, they were mainly written by rich lawyers who possessed assets, slaves, government bonds… like it was the case in philadelphia. Several of the constitution that were established were or approved by the legislative assemblies without being ratified by the population or presented to people after ratification, forcing its acceptance with contraints. The new constitutions were based on Montesquie Model’s that was ironically a radical form of the Roman’s republic constitution, but also the British Constitutional system. Which in sum might returns t one the same. The only states that really carried this idea of sovereignty of te people were Virginia, Pensylvania and maybe in a smaller scale, New hamphires. Significant changes were done such as the Mixbicameral legislative, the inherent rights in virgina, or the Council of censor, the right for suffrage from 21 in pensylvania… In a macro point of view, the structure on which the American colonies was based before the revolution was kept strong and did not change that much. In marryland,  according to the 1776 constitution, to run for governor you had to own 5000 pounds, and 1000 pound for senator. The loyalists were replaced by a new colonial elites and the government had some special economical interest in maintaining a certain kind of order, a certain kind of distribution of power and wealth. The 1780 Massachussest’s constitution only protecting large economics interests and making hard for the farmers to pay off their debts let to the Shay’s rebellion. After what they subit severe repressions from the army. The army and the new government was acting exactly as used to do the United Kingdom few years ago. They were too trampling on the seek of equality that has long shook the colonies. John Adams, who was one of the American Founding Father’s defined equalitarism as the "the science of idiocy ". In his correspondance with John Taylor, he said that it’s a " very profound abstruse and mysterious science ". As we see the American society was not ready to undergo such massive changes, even more if you was not a white male American.

Some Americans such as Indians black slaves and women were neglected from the interests drawn by the declaration of independence, contradicting the statement « that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ». Slavery is for me the biggest issue that the revolution failed to change. Eventhough slavery was hits by revolutionary ideas, it was yet streaghened like never before. As a central institution it would have been difficult and costly for the American government to put and end to this, moreover for the South. The invention of cotton gin in 1793 strengthen the need of black labor, making of cotton the chief money-maker. Free Black men was often captured and sold. Slaves codes were established, making had for them to dispose of themselves. The broom and Bett v. Ashley case, the Hudgins v. Jennison case, the Strader v. Graham case or the Dred scott case, contributed to testify against this seek of equality that shook the American Society.
Women also benefited little from the revolution. When the declaration said « all men are equal » it surely did not included women. Leave away from the political field it’s only in 1920 that they were able to vote for the first time. They contributed to the independence but they staid invisible in the establishment of the new society. Abigail Adams once said to her husband "remember the ladies " while developing the new political system, it seems that she was not enough convincing. They were still kept appart from the state or the national government, forbidden to enrole college education or practicing laws…

The American Revolution was a turning point in the history of the United States. At the origin a protest against the colonial authorities and the English King George III, it was quickly exploited by the new elite  in order to break the ties with England. The outlook for a possible enrichment and the establishment of a new order is the real reason of the revolution and the after war seems to justify it. Little or nothing has changed. The constitution which wanted to be more equal has proved over time to be smoke and mirrors. It turns out to be that the rich remained rich and the poor even poorer. Slavery , women's place in society , the condition of the Indians, did not move an inch.

...