The American Revolution is one of the most widely discussed topics within American History. It is of the uttermost importance not only to our independence, but to how our society functions today. With startlingly intense research, lengthy statics, and trustworthy sources, Joyce Appleby gives us a dazzling account of how and why the revolution changed every aspect of American life in her article “Liberalism and the American Revolution”. Joyce Appleby was born in Omaha, Nebraska on April 9th, 1929. She graduated from Stanford with a B.A., received her M.A. at the University of California, and earned her Ph.D. at Claremont Graduate University. She began her teaching career at the San Diego State University in 1967. In 1981, Appleby became the …show more content…
Professor of History at the University of California, remaining there until the time of her retirement in 2001. From 1990 to 1991, Appleby also taught at the prestigious Oxford University as the Harmsworth Professor of American History. Throughout this time, she wrote several books and articles about Republicanism, Liberalism, the American Revolution, Capitalism, and Thomas Jefferson. To top it all off, Appleby has worked on the editorial boards for several prestigious projects and has received multiple coveted fellowships. In Appleby’s article, “Liberalism and the American Revolution”, she discusses the dangers of opposing average historians by using only the assumptions that are ingrained into our brains. We view the revolution with an assumptious mindset that has been passed down from generation to generation, simply by not fully appreciating the revolution and going into full Benton 2 detail of the effects that these legendary events had on everyday life.
Throughout the last 25 years, however, attitude towards the American Revolution has begun to shift with the formation of a group that is challenging the problem of placing the truth of the British ruling logic next to the rhetoric from the Revolution. What does Appleby say about this new approach to Revolutionary history? “Accepting man as a culture-creating being, the Neo-Whig historians have looked at the period as a socially constructed reality. Their interpretation, nonetheless, hangs upon liberal assumptions about human nature.” (Page 4) Bernard Bailyn, Jack Greene, Edmund Morgan, Gordon Wood, and Richard Buel are just a few of these historians that are reshaping the historical view of the revolution, by reestablishing the way the revolutionaries viewed their time in their own eyes. The internal and external values of the colonists have supreme effect on the nature and ideals of the time, far more than can ever be fully appreciated. The maximum effect was on behavior, which, in turn, affects every other aspect of life. The weight of one’s moral compass affects all of their decisions, thus, certainly impacting the decisions of others. Those in high power or respect set the attitude for the population to follow. Apart from the rebels and anomalies, the general population will follow the suits of those they admire, whether by conscious choice, enforced by their parents, or simply internalized …show more content…
views. The revolutionaries broke rational and traditional thought. They went against the ruling class across the seas and broke their laws. They fought the system because of their passions, their unquenchable desire for freedom. They were the rebellious children revolting against their controlling, cold parents. The revolutionaries grasped their fate into their own hands and took charge of their future. Simply looking upon the thoughts of the mind of a revolutionary is not nearly enough for us to fully grasp what spurred these revolters into their revolts. We must Benton 3 understand what it is like to be forced to succumb to a lifestyle that is thoroughly unenjoyable to us, to be revoked of our basic allowances and denied the rights that are granted to those that are considered above us.
The new Neo-Whig historians explain that in the 1600s and 1700s the colonists had begun to drift away from the social normalities of the British society, thus, when the British established new laws intended for both them and the colonists, the colonists were not pleased. The Neo-Whig historians deepen our knowledge of the anxieties that the colonists faced regularly during the time of their revolution and the time preceding
it. One example that the Neo-Whig historians have brought to light is the process and its obstacles of young colonist men in, not only gaining their personal independence but, dealing with the new found independence from their families. These historians are now discovering that in the latter times of the 1700s, the previous assumed period of deliberately yet gently growing colonial maturity was interrupted by a time of utter detachment from this flowing progression. As these young men knew their colony’s independence as a whole was at risk, they struggled with their individual independence from the households of their youth, and the society as a whole struggled to achieve its desired aspect. The colonists were willing to sacrifice their personal freedoms for the freedom of the society as a whole. They chose liberating the colony as opposed to liberating themselves within the colony. The social construct was widely affected by a variety of factors including; fresh opportunities for men and woman that separated them from their families, the possibility of not belonging to a church, and the simple lack of a structured citizen hierarchy. The most prominent fear that haunted the colonists’ brains was that of becoming a slave to the British society. The British were beginning to impose laws and taxes upon the colonists and the frightening thought of slavery was quickly propagated throughout the colonies. Benton 4 Oxenbridge Thatcher encouraged the growing fear by writing on this matter that the colonists’ loss in the French and Indian war was all for naught, they had only sealed their fate by binding “the shackles of slavery on themselves and their children.”1 Appleby beautifully recreates a mental image of the revolutionary times, including their internal aspects. She has a clear appreciation for the colonists and their determined and resolute mindsets. As for American Exceptionalism, it is clear she believes that America is indeed a phenomenon, and its success is certainly something to be studied and praised. The colonists very well could have succumbed to the British and been forever imprisoned as slaves; yet, with immense faith and strong hearts they gained their independence, forever changing the lives of those on this great soil.
In Woody Holton's Forced Founders, that most revered segment of the revolutionary generation, the elitist gentry class of Virginia, comes across very much as a group of self-serving reactionaries, rather then the idealized revolutionaries of the great patriotic myth of popular history. He sets about disassembling a central portion of the myth created by earlier generations of Consensus historians, by asserting that rather then gallantly leading the charge for independence, Virginia's elitist gentry resorted to independence as their last and only means of saving their elite ruling status, their economic futures, and even their very lives many feared. While this is very much an example of revisionist history, Holton has not so much rewritten history, as he has provided the back story of the complexity and diversity of the Virginia colony on the eve of the American Revolution. For while the book's title may insinuate otherwise, lowly groups like slaves and Indians discussed here are afforded only the status of “founders” by pressing those traditionally thought of in this role to take the plunge for independence. Still the papers and correspondence of the iconic figureheads of the revolutionary generation like Washington, Jefferson, and Madison make up the bulk of primary sources.
However, the author 's interpretations of Jefferson 's decisions and their connection to modern politics are intriguing, to say the least. In 1774, Jefferson penned A Summary View of the Rights of British America and, later, in 1775, drafted the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (Ellis 32-44). According to Ellis, the documents act as proof that Jefferson was insensitive to the constitutional complexities a Revolution held as his interpretation of otherwise important matters revolved around his “pattern of juvenile romanticism” (38). Evidently, the American colonies’ desire for independence from the mother country was a momentous decision that affected all thirteen colonies. However, in Ellis’ arguments, Thomas Jefferson’s writing at the time showed either his failure to acknowledge the severity of the situation or his disregard of the same. Accordingly, as written in the American Sphinx, Jefferson’s mannerisms in the first Continental Congress and Virginia evokes the picture of an adolescent instead of the thirty-year-old man he was at the time (Ellis 38). It is no wonder Ellis observes Thomas Jefferson as a founding father who was not only “wildly idealistic” but also possessed “extraordinary naivete” while advocating the notions of a Jeffersonian utopia that unrestrained
In his essay “The American Revolution as a Response to British Corruption”, historian Bernard Bailyn makes the argument that the American Revolution was inherently conservative because its main goal was to preserve what Americans believed to be their traditional rights as English citizens. He argues that the minor infringements on traditional liberties, like the Stamp Act and the royal ban on lifetime tenure of colonial judges (even though Parliament ruled that judges in England should exercise this right), made the Americans fear that they would set a precedent for future greater infringements on their English liberties. To prove this argument, Baliyan quotes famous primary sources, like John Dickinson, Sam Adams, and various colonial rulings.
Gary B. Nash argues that the American Revolution portrayed “radicalism” in the sense on how the American colonies and its protesters wanted to accommodate their own government. Generally what Gary B. Nash is trying to inform the reader is to discuss the different conditions made by the real people who were actually fighting for their freedom. In his argument he makes it clear that throughout the revolution people showed “radicalism” in the result of extreme riots against the Stamp Act merchants, but as well against the British policies that were implemented. He discusses the urgency of the Americans when it came to declaring their issues against the British on how many slaves became militants and went up against their masters in the fight for a proclamation to free themselves from slavery. But he slowly emerges into the argument on how colonists felt under the
The benefit of hindsight allows modern historians to assume that colonists in British America united easily and naturally to throw off the bonds of tyranny in 1775-1776. The fact that "thirteen clocks were made to strike together" (p.4) surprised even the revolutionary leader John Adams. Prior to the mid-1700s many residents of British North America saw themselves in regional roles rather than as "Americans", they were Virginians or Bostonians, regional loyalties trumped any other including those as British colonial citizens. In T. H. Breen's work, The Marketplace of Revolution, he offers an explanation for the sudden creation of a unique American identity. In his words, "What gave the American Revolution distinctive shape was an earlier transformation of the Anglo-American consumer marketplace" (p. xv). Breen contends that before Americans could unite to resist the British Empire, they needed to first develop a unity and trust with one another in spite of their regional differences. "The Marketplace of Revolution argues, therefore, that the colonists shared experience as consumers provided them with the cultural resources needed to develop a bold new form of political protest" (p. xv). The transformation of the consumer marketplace allowed the colonists of British North America to create a unique British and the American identity that would later result in revolution and the formation of a new nation. This trust based on consumption, Breen concludes, was absolutely necessary for the boycott movement to be an effective tool against the British government. "Unless unhappy people develop the capacity to trust other unhappy people protest remains a local affair easily silence by traditional authority" (p.1).
On the brink of revolution, the colonies were divided amongst themselves. Two factions with different ideologies “The Patriots” & and the “The Loyalist”, to know these factions we must first know another. Because both parties played a pivotal role in the “American Revolution”.
When one explains his or her ingenious yet, enterprising interpretation, one views the nature of history from a single standpoint: motivation. In The American Revolution: A History, Gordon Wood, the author, explains the complexities and motivations of the people who partook in the American Revolution, and he shows the significance of numerous themes, that emerge during the American Revolution, such as democracy, discontent, tyranny, and independence. Wood’s interpretation, throughout his literary work, shows that the true nature of the American Revolution leads to the development of United State’s current government: a federal republic. Wood, the author, views the treatment of the American Revolution in the early twentieth century as scholastic yet, innovative and views the American Revolution’s true nature as
The British colonies in the 17th century were afflicted by many strenuous periods of tension that boiled over resulting in violent rebellions. Bacon’s Rebellion and the Stono rebellion are two such rebellions that rocked the colonies. These conflicts rose from tension between the governance of the colonies and those who they ruled over. The Stono Rebellion and Bacon’s Rebellion were both examples of the American people’s willful determination, unifying capability, and ability to fight back.
There were a myriad of differences between Great Britain and her American colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but these differences can be divided into three basic categories: economic, social, and political. The original American settlers came to the colonies for varied reasons, but a common trait among these settlers was that they still considered themselves British subjects. However, as time passed, the colonists grew disenfranchised from England. Separated from the king by three thousand miles and living in a primitive environment where obtaining simple necessities was a struggle, pragmatism became the common thread throughout all daily life in the colonies. It was this pragmatism that led the colonists to create their own society with a unique culture and system of economics and politics.
“If we measure the radicalism of revolutions by the degree of social misery or economic deprivation suffered, or by the number of people killed or manor houses burned, then this conventional emphasis on the conservatism of the American Revolution becomes true enough. B...
The American Revolution has too often been dominated by the narrative of the founding fathers and has since been remembered as a “glorified cause.” However, the American Revolution was not a unified war but a civil war with many internal disputes that wreaked havoc and chaos throughout America. In his book, The Unknown American Resvolution, Gary B. Nash attempts to unveil the chaos that the American Revolution really was through the eyes of the people not in power, including women, African American slaves, and Native Americans. In his book, Gary B. Nash emphasizes their significance in history to recount the tale of the American Revolution not through the eyes of the privileged elite but through the eyes of the people who sacrificed and struggled the most, but were left forgotten, in their endeavors to reinvent America.
Furthermore, James Otis, questioned the “virtual” representation of the Colonists in the British Parliament. To parry their argument of this poor excuse of representation he called the Colonies “considerable places” and said that they “ought to be” represented (Wood 41). In saying this, Otis pointed out how much America had come to mean to Britain, it was no longer uncharted territory, but a home to many Englishmen. Like Adams, Otis did not disregard the poor. Howard Zinn’s description of Otis notes that he his points required a “genuine recognition of lower-class grievances,” a crucial part of encouraging the Colonists to want freedom from Britain (Zinn 61). While both of these figures gave advantages to the poor who were willing to express their true feelings towards the crown, with this gave tremendous ability of the rich to support their argument and reap the benefits
The American Revolution marked the divorce of the British Empire and its one of the most valued colonies. Behind the independence that America had fought so hard for, there emerged a diverging society that was eager to embrace new doctrines. The ideals in the revolution that motivated the people to fight for freedom continued to influence American society well beyond the colonial period. For example, the ideas borrowed from John Locke about the natural rights of man was extended in an unsuccessful effort to include women and slaves. The creation of state governments and the search for a national government were the first steps that Americans took to experiment with their own system. Expansion, postwar depression as well as the new distribution of land were all evidence that pointed to the gradual maturing of the economic system. Although America was fast on its way to becoming a strong and powerful nation, the underlying issues brought about by the Revolution remained an important part in the social, political and economical developments that in some instances contradicted revolutionary principles in the period from 1775-1800.
The American revolutionaries played a critical role in fighting for the liberty of the American people. They were interested in protecting the rights of the people by implementing the high-law principles that govern the people’s natural rights. The radicalism in the country’s revolution was tempered by the failure of the founders to extend the political rights to that naturally deserved the rights. On the other hand, the British were vigilant in protecting their system by safeguarding their customs and traditions as stipulated in the British law. Americans were agitated to fight for their rights. This paper aims at assessing whether
Modern day society is engrossed in a battle for protection of individual rights and freedoms from infringement by any person, be it the government or fellow citizens. Liberalism offers a solution to this by advocating for the protection of personal freedom. As a concept and ideology in political science, liberalism is a doctrine that defines the motivation and efforts made towards the protection of the aforementioned individual freedom. In the current society, the greatest feature of liberalism is the protection of individual liberty from intrusion or violation by a government. The activities of the government have, therefore, become the core point of focus. In liberalism, advocacy for personal freedom may translate to three ideal situations, based on the role that a government plays in a person’s life. These are no role, a limited role or a relatively large role. The three make up liberalism’s rule of thumb. (Van de Haar 1). Political theorists have