Patriot or Loyalist?

[BakuninFan]

I have an assignment in history class: give a speech (or more like a 5 page essay) determining whether it would be more justified to be a Loyalist or a Patriot in the American Revolution. I wanted to know if any fellow leftists, Marxists, ect could give me good advice in this descision, and maybe justify thier response in Marxian or Leftist terms? Thanks :)

[NecroCommie]

Justification is derived from values, and values are not absolute. It is therefor a matter of oppinion. My personal oppinion would be a third option, not to join a cappie army at all.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Many working people were Patriots, there is evaluation of a "war inside a war" by some historians, alluding to some form of class antagonism within the Patriot cause.

There did exist a third camp, in the form of the Neutrals, but how one can be neutral about British ensalvement I can't understand.

[Revy]

The real issue was that they were not being regarded as Englishmen. They did not consider themselves to be Americans, but Englishmen. Hence the common slogan, "No taxation without representation".

They wanted representation in the Parliament, as Englishmen. Denied the ability to have that representation, the nascent bourgeois and slave-owning elite strived to create its own national identity. But if they had gotten representation, there would have been no American Revolution.

The child of Britain (America) was eventually able to rise to the top of the global hierarchy through the same brutal imperialism.

Therefore, it is my firm conviction that the so-called American Revolution was not a lower-class revolution but a result of the rivalry between the British ruling class and its American colonial ruling class.

It should be noted that there was actually debate about having a King, so the revolution was not actually about having a republic.

[Parker]

Many working people were Patriots, there is evaluation of a "war inside a war" by some historians, alluding to some form of class antagonism within the Patriot cause.

"A Motley Crew in the American Revolution", Chapter Seven of Peter Linebaugh and Marcus Rediker's The Many-Headed Hydra (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=-Rtlbx15EVcC&dq=many-headed+hydra&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=sbMFVmqMLf&sig=HckFFNY3vaTAleyqsI_JBiVw8Ps&hl=en&ei=ozz9SofMA8eA4QbBooH8Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=&f=false), goes into some detail on this. It is rather impressionistic, but argues that in the run-up to 1776 an ad hoc alliance of sorts was formed between rebellious sailors resisting impressment, and slaves.

[Parker]

The real issue was that they were not being regarded as Englishmen. They did not consider themselves to be Americans, but Englishmen. Hence the common slogan, "No taxation without representation".

I couldn't find the video clip of this, but the audio will have to suffice.

"Okay guys, one more thing. Hey, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes." (http://www.entertonement.com/clips/myhxdzpfph--Dazed-and-Confused-Kim-Krizan-Ms-Ginny-Stroud-Pay-their-taxes)

[Devrim]

I have an assignment in history class: give a speech (or more like a 5 page essay) determining whether it would be more justified to be a Loyalist or a Patriot in the American Revolution. I wanted to know if any fellow leftists, Marxists, ect could give me good advice in this descision, and maybe justify thier response in Marxian or Leftist terms? Thanks :)

Try Howard Zinn's a 'People's History of the United States'. Chapters four and five cover this subject:


Chapter 4, "Tyranny is Tyranny" covers the movement for "leveling" (economic equality) in the colonies and the causes of the American Revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution). Zinn argues that the Founding Fathers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States) agitated for war to distract the people from their own economic problems and stop popular movements, a strategy that he claims the country's leaders would continue to use in the future.
Chapter 5, "A Kind of Revolution" covers the war and resistance to participating in war, the effects on the Native American people, and the continued inequalities in the new United States. When the land of veterans of the Revolutionary War was seized for non-payment of taxes, it led to instances of resistance to the government, as in the case of Shays' Rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays%27_Rebellion). Zinn wrote that "governments - including the government of the United States - are not neutral... they represent the dominant economic interests, and... their constitutions are intended to serve these interests."[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_People%27s_History_of_the_United_States#cite_not e-3)



Many working people were Patriots, there is evaluation of a "war inside a war" by some historians, alluding to some form of class antagonism within the Patriot cause.

There did exist a third camp, in the form of the Neutrals, but how one can be neutral about British ensalvement I can't understand.

One could ask, knowing the AF's politics, how you could be neutral in the wars in Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Devrim

[GPDP]

One of my professors argues the American Revolution was not actually a revolution, but a rebellion, since a revolution implies a rapid transformation of society, while the American Revolution was more about the American ruling class rebelling against the British ruling class, and upon their seizure of power, the biggest change was in the government rather than in American society as a whole.

Think about that.

[Parker]

One of my professors argues the American Revolution was not actually a revolution, but a rebellion, since a revolution implies a rapid transformation of society, while the American Revolution was more about the American ruling class rebelling against the British ruling class, and upon their seizure of power, the biggest change was in the government rather than in American society as a whole.

Think about that.

another one of the many arguments historians have with each other that boil down to definitions. The phrase I highlighted is a case in point. I would have thought the overthrow of monarchy, the establishment of an independent republic based on a universal declaration of the rights of man, and so on, were revolutionary, and that all this changed American society irrevocably.

Still, the conflict was also international, with the ruling classes of Holland, France and Spain siding with the colonists against the British crown.