Apush Revolution Dbq

While the rest of Europe was engaging in violent revolutions for independence in the late 18th century, early 19th, Britain was busy industrializing and resolving social and political problems through reform, not war. The last time Britain experienced such agitation, the Stuarts reigned supreme and the newly created United Kingdom vowed to stave off any hint of rebellion or civil war [1642-1651 English civil war] OR (as it was the English civil war, 1642-1651) at any cost. Yet, in the Modern Era, nearly every other state in Europe has, by now, experienced at least one forcible takeover of government only to be replaced by another. From la Terreur in 1789 France to the Russian rise of “Hooligans” in 1917, it seemed no nation was immune to the

consequences of socio-political instability. But why is Britain different? How has she escaped thus far untouched from such depositio? The answer? By the skin of her teeth.
Simon Shaman writes in great length in chapter two on just how close Britain became to bloody revolution.

In short, Schama details how it was a Whig majority led by Prime Minister, Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey in 1832 that helped spur along the passage of an electoral system reformation bill, thus satiating the public’s growing malcontent. The Act was a response to many years of public critism aimed at an unfair electoral system wherein votes were literally bought by candidates. The Bill was designed to, according to its preamble, “take effectual measures for correcting diverse abuses that have long prevailed in the choice of members to serve in the Commons House of Parliament.” The Act also created 67 new constituencies, or half a million new voters, as Schama puts it, along with the broadening of the franchise’s property qualification in the counties, to include small land-owners, tenant farmers, and

shopkeepers.
The Whigs had to act fast. Although reformation was proposed in the past, societal patience was wearing thin. Riots, ambushes, and other violent acts were increasing. Schama explains just how volatile the situation was: “In the coal and iron country of South Wales, hunger fused with political anger when a crowd at Merthyr Tydil attacked a courtroom, liberated pro-reform prisoners and took over a town.”
Unlike the House of Lords, who, with the Pitt factions in Parliament were strongly opposed to increasing the number of voters, the Whigs insisted that reform was necessary to “secure the state.” Creating a new House of Commons, the Reform Bill of 1832 helped pull Britain back from the terror of rebellion. “This was a parliament,” Schama on the newly created House of Commons, “in which a vague air of common-sensical liberalism had indeed stopped revolution in its tracks.”
While I personally believe historical speculation can often-time lead to useless conclusions, this isn’t always the case.

Debating “might-have-beens” can also produce some interesting and insightful results, namely, epihianic moments of revolutionary theories and explanations. For example, had the Lords stood unyielding against the Whig’s demands, would the public, yet still disenfranchised and hopeless calmly return to their homes peacefully? Schama clearly believes otherwise, as the bill “stopped revolution in its track.” How can modern historians use this information, knowing clearly that the main variable of and obstacle to social rebellion was parlimentiary reformation . Undoubtedly, the potential for revolution in 1831-32 was there. Public support for parliamentary reform had never been greater. Unable to dispatch troops rapidly to areas that were out of control, Britain was essentially helpless to the widespread riots. Revolutions had been mounted elsewhere for less.

Identify.

In the end, reform saved the day. Unlike most of Europe, where autocratic, Absolute Monarchs, unwilling to share power with the populace, ruled the day, Britain was a Constitutional Monarchy where the aristocracy had long since made a conscious decision to share at least some of its power with common people, albeit on a limited scale. There was one thing, Schama writes, that ensured Britain escaped unscathed from bloody revolution: social reform legislation that benefited the layman. Simply put, political agitation and lobbying achieved reform in Britain, so violent revolution was’nt necessary.