DOCSLIB.ORG

Was the American Revolution Revolutionary?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Was the American Revolution Revolutionary? Was the American Revolution Revolutionary? The American Revolution was the most radical event in the history of America Thesis: The revolution brought about radical ideas and changes in American society about egalitarianism. Supporting Arguments: The American Revolution created the written constitution. It was the first modern document to espouse ideals of egalitarianism and is the most enduring example of democracy in the world. The Revolution resulted in the creation of an independent nation; British colonists became American citizens. The Revolutionary War gave birth to ideas about voting rights for more people, and raised debates about the roles of women and slaves. The Revolution was conservative in the sense that it maintained social, economic, and for the most part, political continuity. Thesis: A true social revolution destroys the institutional foundations of the old order and transfers power from a ruling elite to new social groups Supporting Arguments: Political authority for the most part remained in the hands of the same men who started the Revolution. They entrenched their positions of power and gained economic rewards for declaring independence. Although there were challenges raised about white male authority, women and slaves were not given any rights under the Constitution. Wealth was distributed much the same before as after the American Revolution, class distinctions remained the same. 1 The following passages are excerpts from Revolutionary Era documents. Read them carefully and consider them in the context of the above historians arguments. “MANKIND being originally equals in the order of creation, the equality could only be destroyed by some subsequent circumstance; the distinctions of rich, and poor, may in a great measure be accounted for... But there is another and greater distinction for which no truly natural or religious reason can be assigned, and that is, the distinction of men into KINGS and SUBJECTS.” Thomas Paine in Common Sense 1776 “I long to hear that you have declared an independancy [sic]-and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I would desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Ladies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.” Abigail Adams to John Adams, March 31, 1776 “[we,] by the authority of the good people of these states, reject and renounce the allegiance and subjection to the kinds of Great Britain … we utterly dissolve and break off all political connection which may have heretofore subsisted between us and the people or parliament of Great Britain; and finally we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states…for the support of this declaration we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.” The rough draft of the Declaration of Independence 28 June, 1776 “Conceiving that an individual independence of the States is utterly irreconcilable with their aggregate sovereignty, and that a consolidation of the whole into one simple republic would be as inexpedient as it is unattainable. I have sought for some middle ground...” James Madison to George Washington, April 16, 1787 2 Name: _______________________________ Revolution: noun - a drastic and far-reaching change in ways of thinking and behaving; an event that occurs when something passes from one state or phase to another. Based on the historical arguments and primary sources you just read, write a paragraph or two as to whether you think the American Revolution was truly Revolutionary. Be sure to support why you think the way you do. You can use the back of this page if you need more room. 3 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the Quasi-War with France
    John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the Quasi-War with France David Loudon General University Honors Professor Robert Griffith, Faculty Advisor American University, Spring 2010 1 John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and the Quasi-War with France Abstract This paper examines the split of the Federalist Party and subsequent election defeat in 1800 through the views of John Adams and Alexander Hamilton on the Quasi-War with France. More specifically, I will be focusing on what caused their split on the French issue. I argue that the main source of conflict between the two men was ideological differences on parties in contemporary American politics. While Adams believed that there were two parties in America and his job was to remain independent of both, Hamilton saw only one party (the Republicans), and believed that it was the goal of all “real” Americans to do whatever was needed to defeat that faction. This ideological difference between the two men resulted in their personal disdain for one another and eventually their split on the French issue. Introduction National politics in the early American republic was a very uncertain venture. The founding fathers had no historical precedents to rely upon. The kind of government created in the American constitution had never been attempted in the Western World; it was a piecemeal system designed in many ways more to gain individual state approval than for practical implementation. Furthermore, while the fathers knew they wanted opposition within their political system, they rejected political parties as evil and dangerous to the public good. This tension between the belief in opposition and the rejection of party sentiment led to confusion and high tensions during the early American republic.
    [Show full text]
  • Yorktown Victory Center Replacement Will Be Named 'American Revolution Museum at Yorktown'
    DISPATCH A Newsletter of the Jamestown-Yorktown Foundation • Spring 2012 Yorktown Victory Center Replacement Will Be Named ‘American Revolution Museum at Yorktown’ Along with a physical transforma- bonds, is estimated at $46 tion of the Yorktown Victory Center will million. Private donations come a new name – “American Revolu- to the Jamestown-Yorktown tion Museum at Yorktown” – adopted Foundation, Inc., will sup- May 10 by the Jamestown-Yorktown port elements of gallery Foundation Board of Trustees and and outdoor exhibits and endorsed by the Jamestown-Yorktown educational resources. Foundation, Inc., Board of Directors. “The new name high- Recommended by a board naming lights the core offering of study task force, the new name will the museum, American be implemented upon completion of Revolution history,” said the museum replacement, and in the Frank B. Atkinson, who meantime the Yorktown Victory Center chaired the naming study will continue in operation as a museum task force comprised of 11 The distinctive two-story main entrance of the American of the American Revolution. members of the Jamestown- Revolution Museum at Yorktown will serve as a focal point Construction is expected to start Yorktown Foundation for arriving visitors. in the second half of 2012 on the proj- and Jamestown-Yorktown name were identified, and research ect, which includes an 80,000-square- Foundation, Inc., boards, “and the in- was undertaken on names currently in foot structure that will encompass ex- clusion of the word ‘Yorktown’ provides use. Selected names were tested with panded exhibition galleries, classrooms a geographical anchor. We arrived Yorktown Victory Center visitors and and support functions, and reorganiza- at this choice through a methodical reviewed by a trademark attorney and tion of the 22-acre site.
    [Show full text]
  • CONDORCET (1743–94) Bernard Jolibert1
    The following text was originally published in Prospects: the quarterly review of comparative education (Paris, UNESCO: International Bureau of Education), vol. XXIII, no. 1/2, 1993, p. 197-209. ©UNESCO: International Bureau of Education, 2000 This document may be reproduced free of charge as long as acknowledgement is made of the source. CONDORCET (1743–94) Bernard Jolibert1 In the discussions of ideas that constitute our daily intellectual environment there are certain words that reek of cordite and certain writers who give us a sense of peace. The term ‘secular’ is in the first category, and Condorcet in the second. A person who speaks of secular or non-religious education or schools, or of educational ‘neutrality’, immediately lays himself or herself open to being regarded either as a supporter of the ‘independent school’, that is private, clerical, religious, ‘right-wing’ and, needless to say, reactionary, or as a champion of public, secular, positivist, ‘left-wing’ and, needless to say, anti-clerical education. Simplistic images are powerful, and ingrained mental habits so reassuring. And yet the divisions are not always where one would like them to be. I may be that one of the first people to notice the caricatural exaggeration of this Manichaean representation of the school was in fact Condorcet, at a time when the present-day French noun denoting the principle of non-religious education did not yet exist. Rather than bludgeon the reader with an encyclopedic account of the educational writings and thought of Marie Jean Antoine Nicolas Caritat, Marquis de Condorcet, it seemed more useful to accompany this writer, insufficiently known in spite of media excitement over the bicentenary of the French Revolution, along the path that led him to discover the secular ideal.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 – the Enlightenment and the American Revolution I. Philosophy in the Age of Reason (5-1) A
    Chapter 5 – The Enlightenment and the American Revolution I. Philosophy in the Age of Reason (5-1) A. Scientific Revolution Sparks the Enlightenment 1. Natural Law: Rules or discoveries made by reason B. Hobbes and Lock Have Conflicting Views 1. Hobbes Believes in Powerful Government a. Thomas Hobbes distrusts humans (cruel-greedy-selfish) and favors strong government to keep order b. Promotes social contract—gaining order by giving up freedoms to government c. Outlined his ideas in his work called Leviathan (1651) 2. Locke Advocates Natural Rights a. Philosopher John Locke believed people were good and had natural rights—right to life, liberty, and property b. In his Two Treatises of Government, Lock argued that government’s obligation is to protect people’s natural rights and not take advantage of their position in power C. The Philosophes 1. Philosophes: enlightenment thinkers that believed that the use of reason could lead to reforms of government, law, and society 2. Montesquieu Advances the Idea of Separation of Powers a. Montesquieu—had sharp criticism of absolute monarchy and admired Britain for dividing the government into three branches b. The Spirit of the Laws—outlined his belief in the separation of powers (legislative, executive, and judicial branches) to check each other to stop one branch from gaining too much power 3. Voltaire Defends Freedom of Thought a. Voltaire—most famous of the philosophe who published many works arguing for tolerance and reason—believed in the freedom of religions and speech b. He spoke out against the French government and Catholic Church— makes powerful enemies and is imprisoned twice for his views 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Causes of the American Revolution
    Page 50 Chapter 12 By What Right Thomas Hobbes John Locke n their struggle for freedom, the colonists raised some age-old questions: By what right does government rule? When may men break the law? I "Obedience to government," a Tory minister told his congregation, "is every man's duty." But the Reverend Jonathan Boucher was forced to preach his sermon with loaded pistols lying across his pulpit, and he fled to England in September 1775. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence that when people are governed "under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such a Government." Both Boucher and Jefferson spoke to the question of whether citizens owe obedience to government. In an age when kings held near absolute power, people were told that their kings ruled by divine right. Disobedience to the king was therefore disobedience to God. During the seventeenth century, however, the English beheaded one King (King Charles I in 1649) and drove another (King James II in 1688) out of England. Philosophers quickly developed theories of government other than the divine right of kings to justify these actions. In order to understand the sources of society's authority, philosophers tried to imagine what people were like before they were restrained by government, rules, or law. This theoretical condition was called the state of nature. In his portrait of the natural state, Jonathan Boucher adopted the opinions of a well- known English philosopher, Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that humankind was basically evil and that the state of nature was therefore one of perpetual war and conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Paine's Influential Rhetoric in Common Sense
    Revolutionary Persuasion: Thomas Paine’s Influential Rhetoric in Common Sense On January 10, 1776, an unknown English immigrant drastically altered the course of human events by publishing what has been referred to as the most influential pamphlet in American history. This man was Thomas Paine, and his pamphlet was titled Common Sense - two words which to this very day resonate as synonymous with American independence and freedom. Paine’s influential writing in Common Sense made an immediate impact on the minds and hearts of thousands of colonists throughout the densely populated eastern seaboard of North America, calling for an end to tyrannical British rule and for the subsequent foundation of an independent, egalitarian republic. Paine’s “hardnosed political logic demanded the creation of an American nation” (Rhetoric, np), and through his persuasive discourse he achieved just that. Paine’s knowledge and use of rhetorical skill was a main reason for the groundbreaking, widespread success of Common Sense, the magnitude of which, many would argue, has yet to be matched. Rhetoric is the art or science of persuasion and the ability to use language effectively. This paper will provide an in-depth analysis of Paine’s rhetoric in Common Sense by examining factors such as the historical time period, communicator attributes, and audience psychology, and will deliver a thorough application of contemporary modes of persuasive study to the document’s core ideological messages. To Paine, the cause of America was the cause of all mankind (Paine, 3), and for that matter he will be forever known as the father of the American Revolution.
    [Show full text]
  • De Sade's Theatrical Passions
    06.puchner 4/19/05 2:28 PM Page 111 Martin Puchner Sade’s Theatrical Passions The Theater of the Revolution The Marquis de Sade entered theater history in 1964 when the Royal Shakespeare Company, under the direction of Peter Brook, presented a play by the unknown author Peter Weiss entitled, The Persecution and Assassination of Jean-Paul Marat as Performed by the Inmates of the Asylum of Charenton Under the Direction of the Marquis de Sade.1 Marat/Sade, as the play is usually called, became an extraordinary success story.2 By com- bining narrators with techniques developed in a multi-year workshop entitled “Theater of Cruelty,” Marat/Sade managed to link the two modernist visionaries of the theater whom everybody had considered to be irreconcilable opposites: Bertolt Brecht and Antonin Artaud. Marat/Sade not only fabricated a new revolutionary theater from the vestiges of modernism, it also coincided with a philosophical and cul- tural revision of the French revolution that had begun with Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s The Dialectics of Enlightenment (1944/69) and found a preliminary culmination in Michel Foucault’s History of Madness (1972). At the same time, the revival of Sade was fu- eled by the first complete publication of his work in French (1967) and by Roland Barthes’ landmark study, Sade Fourier Loyola (1971).3 Marat/Sade had thus hit a theatrical and intellectual nerve. Sade, however, belongs to theater history as more than just a char- acter in a play.Little is known about the historical Sade’s life-long pas- sion for the theater, about his work as a theater builder and manager, an actor and director.
    [Show full text]
  • Causes of the American Revolution
    Missing Pieces of the Puzzle: African Americans in Revolutionary Times “Tell them that if I am Black I am free born American & a revolutionary soldier & therefore ought not to be thrown entirely out of the scale of notice.” -John Chavis to Willie P. Mangum, March 10, 1832 Overview In a puzzle, each piece counts. Yet often when studying the Revolutionary War, we forget to acknowledge the important roles Africans and African Americans played, whether in fighting for either side of the war, or fighting for their own rights to freedom. Without including their pieces of the puzzle, the history we learn is incomplete. In this lesson, students will learn how Blacks were contributing to colonial society, making active choices to survive their bondage and striving to shape and control their own lives amidst the Patriots’ struggle for political freedom. By participating in an in depth class discussion centering around a Power Point presentation, students will explore the roles of Blacks during the Revolutionary War, gaining an understanding of the contradiction of a nation seeking independence while simultaneously denying freedom to those enslaved. Students will share their new understanding by creating an artistic bulletin board-sized puzzle (“Every Piece Counts”) focused on the roles African Americans played during the Revolutionary War. Grades 5, 8, 11 Materials • African Americans in Revolutionary Times Power Point; available in the Database of K-12 Resources (in PDF format) at https://k12database.unc.edu/files/2012/05/AfricanAmericansRevWarPPT1.pdf
    [Show full text]
  • Civil War and Revolution
    SungraphoThema VELS levels 1-3 Civil War and Revolution What can the study of civil war bring to our understanding of revolutions? Professor David Armitage, Harvard University The study of civil war has recently become academic Civil war has gradually become the most widespread, big business, especially among political scientists the most destructive, and now the most characteristic and economists. A surge of intellectual interest in form of organised human violence. Since 1820, an a major problem like this often has two sources: average of two to four per cent of all countries have the internal dynamics of academic disciplines experienced civil war at any given moment. This themselves, and external currents in the wider world striking average disguises the fact that some periods that scholars hope their findings might shape. The were even more acutely afflicted by internal warfare: ongoing ‘boom in the study of civil war,’ as it has for example, the middle decades of the nineteenth been called, has both these motives. Economists who century, the period of the US Civil War, the Taiping study underdevelopment, especially in Africa, have Rebellion and the Indian Mutiny, among other internal isolated civil war as one of its main causes. Students conflicts.2 The decades since 1975 have seen a similar of international relations who focused their attention spike in the incidence of internal warfare. Indeed, in on wars between states have turned to the study of the last thirty years, an average of at least ten per cent civil wars as they found their traditional subject of all countries at any one time have been suffering disappearing before their very eyes: since World War civil war: in 2006 (the last year for which complete II, the developed world has enjoyed a ‘Long Peace’ data are available), there were thirty-two civil wars in without interstate war, while between 1989 and 2006, progress around the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Montesquieu on the History and Geography of Political Liberty
    Montesquieu on the History and Geography of Political Liberty Author: Rebecca Clark Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/bc-ir:103616 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2012 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Boston College Graduate School of Arts & Sciences Department of Political Science MONTESQUIEU ON THE HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY OF POLITICAL LIBERTY A dissertation by REBECCA RUDMAN CLARK submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2012 © Copyright by REBECCA RUDMAN CLARK 2012 Abstract Montesquieu on the History and Geography of Political Liberty Rebecca R. Clark Dissertation Advisor: Christopher Kelly Montesquieu famously presents climate and terrain as enabling servitude in hot, fertile climes and on the exposed steppes of central Asia. He also traces England’s exemplary constitution, with its balanced constitution, independent judiciary, and gentle criminal practices, to the unique conditions of early medieval northern Europe. The English “found” their government “in the forests” of Germany. There, the marginal, variegated terrain favored the dispersion of political power, and a pastoral way of life until well into the Middle Ages. In pursuing a primitive honor unrelated to political liberty as such, the barbaric Franks accidentally established the rudiments of the most “well-tempered” government. His turn to these causes accidental to human purposes in Parts 3-6 begins with his analysis of the problem of unintended consequences in the history of political reform in Parts 1-2. While the idea of balancing political powers in order to prevent any one individual or group from dominating the rest has ancient roots, he shows that it has taken many centuries to understand just what needs to be balanced, and to learn to balance against one threat without inviting another.
    [Show full text]
  • The Misunderstood Philosophy of Thomas Paine
    THE MISUNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY OF THOMAS PAINE A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of History Jason Kinsel December, 2015 THE MISUNDERSTOOD PHILOSOPHY OF THOMAS PAINE Jason Kinsel Thesis Approved: Accepted: ______________________________ _____________________________ Advisor Dean of the College Dr. Walter Hixson Dr. Chand Midha ______________________________ ______________________________ Faculty Reader Dean of the Graduate School Dr. Martino-Trutor Dr. Chand Midha ______________________________ ______________________________ Department Chair Date Dr. Martin Wainwright ii ABSTRACT The name Thomas Paine is often associated with his political pamphlet Common Sense. The importance of “Common Sense” in regards to the American Revolution has been researched and debated by historians, political scientists, and literary scholars. While they acknowledge that Paine’s ideas and writing style helped to popularize the idea of separation from Great Britain in 1776, a thorough analysis of the entirety of Paine’s philosophy has yet to be completed. Modern scholars have had great difficulty with categorizing works such as, The Rights of Man, Agrarian Justice, and Paine’s Dissertation on First Principles of Government. Ultimately, these scholars feel most comfortable with associating Paine with the English philosopher John Locke. This thesis will show that Paine developed a unique political philosophy that is not only different from Locke’s in style, but fundamentally opposed to the system of government designed by Locke in his Second Treatise of Government. Furthermore, I will provide evidence that Paine’s contemporary’s in the American Colonies and Great Britain vehemently denied that Paine’s ideas resembled those of Locke in any way.
    [Show full text]
  • From the American Revolution Through the American Civil War"
    History 216-01: "From the American Revolution through the American Civil War" J.P. Whittenburg Fall 2009 Email: [email protected] Office: Young House (205 Griffin Avenue) Web Page: http://faculty.wm.edu/jpwhit Telephone: 757-221-7654 Office Hours: By Appointment Clearly, this isn't your typical class. For one thing, we meet all day on Fridays. For another, we will spend most of our class time "on-site" at museums, battlefields, or historic buildings. This class will concentrate on the period from the end of the American Revolution through the end of the American Civil War, but it is not at all a narrative that follows a neat timeline. I’ll make no attempt to touch on every important theme and we’ll depart from the chronological approach whenever targets of opportunities present themselves. I'll begin most classes with some sort of short background session—a clip from a movie, oral reports, or maybe something from the Internet. As soon as possible, though, we'll be into a van and on the road. Now, travel time can be tricky and I do hate to rush students when we are on-site. I'll shoot for getting people back in time for a reasonably early dinner—say 5:00. BUT there will be times when we'll get back later than that. There will also be one OPTIONAL overnight trip—to the Harper’s Ferry and the Civil War battlefields at Antietam and Gettysburg. If these admitted eccentricities are deeply troubling, I'd recommend dropping the course. No harm, no foul—and no hard feelings.
    [Show full text]