The American Revolution

[Adil3tr]

I know how people post long things, so heres something I wrote just now for my honors history class.




The American Revolution Research Essay
Adil

Essay Prompt: Was the American Revolution a radical departure on the part of the Americans or a conservative attempt to reassert control over their political world?


The American Revolution took the conservative attitude of the aristocrats of Britain and refined it to create a modern, elitist ideology, dripping with enlightenment philosophy used for their own ends. The American Revolution did not represent the furthering of the ideal of freedom, but instead the replacement of a foreign landed aristocracy, with a new political aristocracy of the wealthiest and most ambitious Americans.
The situation in the colonies was dire long before the British began installing taxes. By 1760, there had been eighteen uprisings to overthrow the colonial governments, six slave rebellions, and forty riots. There were 25,000 people living in New York. Newspapers wrote about the growing numbers of beggars and poor. A letter in a newspaper read, “How often have our streets been covered with thousands of barrels of flour for trade, while our neighbors can hardly procure enough to make a dumpling to satisfy hunger.” In Boston, many people in the lower classes began to attend their town meetings and express their discontent. The governor of Massachusetts described the situation, “the meanest inhabitants… by their constant attendance there are general the majority and outvote the gentlemen, merchants, substantial traders, and all the better parts of the inhabitants.” In 1766, 1,700 tenants armed themselves, closed the courts, and broke open the jails. The situation was very serious for the colonial ruling class, unable to make god on the promises of a “city upon a hill” where colonists could live well off the land and live better than in Europe.
This created a problem for one group, and an opportunity for another. On one side were those ambitious or wealthy individuals who were not of the ruling class but wanted dearly to be, including lawyers such as James Otis, and on the other side were the colonial leaders, desperate to find a way to both end their own problems, and further their own power. These groups found a common cause in independence. James Otis called on the energy of the people, this lawyer saying to a group of mechanics, “I am forced to get my living by the labor of my hand and the sweat of my bro, earned under the frowns of some who have no natural right to be above me…” Learning from the subsequent riots against wealthy Bostonians, Otis aimed his attacks at the British. That would bethe first example of men like Otis rallying the lower classes, but the end of the rhetoric of class anger, giving way to the rhetoric of nationalism.
Independence would allow colonial leaders control over their own colonies, free from British interference, expansion into the Ohio valley, and free trade to make money however they and the merchant classes saw fit. These leaders saw Britain, now the only serious power in North America, as a target for the resentment of the lower classes that they had earned. So they rushed to support the work of men like Sam Adams, inciting violence against Britain and sparking war.
Like the revolution, like the war provided a means for ambitious individuals to get ahead under the banner of one ideal or another. One colonial lieutenant said, “I was a shoemaker… When this rebellion came on I saw some of my neighbors got into commission. I was very ambitious and did not like to see those men above me… I offered to enlist upon having a lieutenants commission, which was granted. I imagined myself now in way of promotion… if my commander was killed, then I would rise in rank, and perhaps still higher. These Sir! Were the only motives of my entering into service; for as to the dispute between Great Britain and the Colonies, I know nothing of it.” Excluded from the militia were Native Americans, free Negros, white servants, and men without a stable home.
Conduct during the war greatly reflects the nature of the American Revolution. This is customary. For instance, the Russian Revolution is judged not by its freeing of serfs, women, homosexuals, and workers, nor its policy of self determination of nations, or by its immediate calls for peace, but instead by sometimes harsh methods deployed during the massive civil war it was fighting against an anti-Semitic fascistic enemy. Many states installed a draft, forcing members of their lower classes to fight, while providing means, often a fee, for the more affluent to avoid such measure. This was an early example of the weakness of “equality before the law”, now a draft, one day a poll tax that all will pay equally. Nineteen men in Connecticut did not show up for military duty and were jailed, only released upon pledging to fight. The Colonial military also practiced impressments of sailors, prompting one Pennsylvania official to say: “We cannot help observing how similar this conduct is to that of British Officers during our subjection to Great Britain.” Watching Washington conduct the war, a chaplain in Concord wrote, “New lords, New laws. The strictest government is taking place and great distinction is made between officers and men (including a difference of nearly $70 a month in pay). Everyone is made to know his place and keep it, or be immediately tied up and receive not one but 30 or 40 lashes.” Washington ran his army much like he intended to run his nation ten years later.
Much more than a conservative attempt to restore the situation before the war, the American Revolution was an attempt to harness the discontent of the lower classes against the mother country, enabling the ruling class of the colonies to win a far greater prize that its old existence. Men like Otis dreamed small, wanting to join the affluent in a series of loosely connected colonies, but men like Washington ad Alexander Hamilton had much larger plans. With a plan to create a nation with a strong central government and to set in motion the expansion of the United States, with a central bank, a constitutional government with an unelected President and Senate, and a doctrine of Manifest Destiny Washington created what would one day become the most powerful structure of moneymen and politicians in the history of the world.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The American Revolution represented a break within the worldwide system of mercantile imperialism and was therefore an historically progressive event (if one wishes to look at it from a Marxian perspective). It was also supported by the large majority of farmers and artisans who represented the lower classes, as someone mentioned in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/american-revolution-t78079/index.html?t=78079&highlight=american+revolution) thread. There was also a certain degree of social upheaval which, while not on the same level as the subsequent revolution in France, certainly did exist in the thirteen colonies.

[B0LSHEVIK]

The American revolution is a sham. Its not a revolution, per se. It was a fight for independence from the British Crown. Not much more to it. Obviously class struggle existed (even though the term class struggle wasnt coined till the mid 19th century) but the vast majority of fighters were farmers simply because the vast majority of Americans WERE farmers!!!! About 90% I've seen cited.

The 'founders' did nothing more than establish a democratic aristocracy, by the elite, for the elite. Much like that of ancient greece or the Roman republic. IE, white land owning males were the original citizens of the country. Not white women. Not native americans. Not african americans (who were still slaves despite the call for 'equality'). And it was a civil war, not of moral or principled belief, but for self interest of the founders, of course, draped in a flag. I dont consider it progressive one bit. Maybe in that they stole a large portion of the Queens imperial holdings but, ehhh.

[B0LSHEVIK]

Also, the founders put down several 'popular' rebellions calling for redistribution of land among other 'vanities' as a founder once wrote. Shays rebellion, obviously, is a famous example.

Therefore the American Rev, was not a true revolution.

[B0LSHEVIK]

If you think the American Revolution is "a sham" or "not a revolution" or "historically-conservative", you are neither a Marxist nor a dialectical materialist. Explosive Situation already pointed this out, but the Revolution of 1776 ended colonial subjugation of the American colonies by the British mercantile empire. It destroyed feudal class relations in the colonies and paved the way for the development of liberal democracy, a system of free labor, and capitalism. Marx wrote copiously about how historically progressive the American Revolution was, but the basis of what he says--that the bourgeoisie were a revolutionary class at one time--should be apparent to anyone who has read The Communist Manifesto.

Both of you badly need to research this event if you're serious about being leftists.

Im both aware and in accordance with what you posted. But yet Ive managed to think for myself on some issues.

Take for example your very patriotic line "ended colonial subjugation of the American colonies by the British mercantile empire." Something to be very proud of, no? And what did this all mean for the native americans, the true proletarians of the land? Marx, a great writer and one my heroes (I consider myself a marxist), had a very 'racist' view of non-euros. Will you deny this?

In my account, and I think Marx's too, It was the French Revolution that truly challenged Europe's aristocracies, not the US fight for independence; where yet another aristocratic democracy was created.

[B0LSHEVIK]

The American Revolution was never meant to challenge the landed European aristocracy and end feudalism in Europe. The lack of geographically contiguous borders limited any domino effect that 1776 would have on Europe.

When we call an event historically revolutionary or progressive, it's not that we defend it as this amazing time of freedom and liberty for a lot of people. The label gets applied to events that drive class struggle forward and revolutionize the productive forces and mode of production of a given epoch. One cannot conceive of socialism without conceiving of capitalism, and the latter is a painful ordeal for the lower sectors of society to endure.

It's worth pointing out, as well, that the deplorable treatment of Native Americans in the colonies is a non-unique negative impact of the development of capitalism or the United States. The specific forms of oppression changed, but the feudal colonial structure was equally repressive--one might argue successfully that it was more repressive--than what would develop after 1776.


#1) You said yourself that "historically progressive the American Revolution was, but the basis of what he says--that the bourgeoisie were a revolutionary class at one." This leads me to assume that you too believe that the French revolution was capitalist revolution that ended european feudalism (tho not really), and not the US correct? Because, after all, the US fight for independence was never meant to have ramifications in Europe, right? So simply, what did the founders create? An aristocratic democracy (like that of athens or the roman republic, nothing new or revolutionary here) that was friendly to the aristocracies across europe. I understand that in 'theory' breaking away from England was revolutionary and or progressive for the American slave owning bourgeois, it meant or changed nothing for the +90% who were poor farmers or those poor souls who were native americans or slaves. I also understand the evolutionary process of society. I just dont like calling something that wasnt revolutionary, revolutionary. Lets just say, in 1776 the American bourgeois rocked the British boat a bit.

#2) "feudal colonial structure was equally repressive--one might argue successfully that it was more repressive--than what would develop after 1776"

How so?

[Adil3tr]

If you think the American Revolution is "a sham" or "not a revolution" or "historically-conservative", you are neither a Marxist nor a dialectical materialist. Explosive Situation already pointed this out, but the Revolution of 1776 ended colonial subjugation of the American colonies by the British mercantile empire. It destroyed feudal class relations in the colonies and paved the way for the development of liberal democracy, a system of free labor, and capitalism. Marx wrote copiously about how historically progressive the American Revolution was, but the basis of what he says--that the bourgeoisie were a revolutionary class at one time--should be apparent to anyone who has read The Communist Manifesto.

The original essay is horrible from any historical materialist stand point, in that it convolutes the non-socialist character of the American Revolution with it being "conservative". No serious historian takes that view, and most academics who analyze class relations during the Revolution of 1776--particularly the esteemed Columbia University Professor Charles A. Beard, who wrote the first historical materialist account of the Revolution of 1776, and Brown University Professor Gordon S. Wood--are extremely clear that this was a radical, progressive step forward for human social development.

I desperately encourage both of you to get a hold of Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Interpretation-Constitution-United-States/dp/0029024803) and Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883). I also picked up a copy of Ray Raphael's A People's History of the American Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-American-Revolution-Independence/dp/0060004401) recently at a used book sale, and I highly recommend it as a further resource. Both of you badly need to research this event if you're serious about being leftists.

This was more to piss of my teacher. I realize fully the importance of the American revolution, but it was precisely a capitalist revolution, not simply anti feudal. There was plenty of class conflict within the revolution. This essay didn't express my exact beliefs but you had to kind of be an ass about it. Thanks got saying my essay was terrible.

[syndicat]

it wasn't really a revolution. it was a struggle of the local capitalist elite to decolonize, that is, to remove the control of the British empire. it was also an internal struggle within the dominant capitalist elite because the more established members of that class were tied in with British imperialism. much of the elite involved in the revolt were land speculators and money lenders and major landowners. they wanted to ensure a local state to gain control of the Indian lands west of the Alleghenies among other things. in 1763 the Brits had given the Indians west of the mountains assurances that they would be secure in their area. with the Brits gone, those assurances could be easily violated and speculation in western lands could continue.

there were some rebellions of the working farmers and slaves in the coloniial era. Shays rebellion occurred only a few months before the meeting that created the present Constitution in 1787. poor farmers wanted debt relief. but there wasn't really a challenge to the dominant class in the way the French revolution did. there was no movement that articulated an opposite sort of conception to how the country should be run.

there was no feudal aristocracy in the British colonies, so there was no feudal class for the local capitalists to fight against. this differed from the French revolution which was more a three sided affair....the working poor in towns and countryside, the rising capitalists, and the feudal system with the parasitic aristocratic class. the feudal aristocracy was broken in the French revolution. there was no class broken like that in the American war for independence.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If you think the American Revolution is "a sham" or "not a revolution" or "historically-conservative", you are neither a Marxist nor a dialectical materialist. Explosive Situation already pointed this out, but the Revolution of 1776 ended colonial subjugation of the American colonies by the British mercantile empire. It destroyed feudal class relations in the colonies and paved the way for the development of liberal democracy, a system of free labor, and capitalism. Marx wrote copiously about how historically progressive the American Revolution was, but the basis of what he says--that the bourgeoisie were a revolutionary class at one time--should be apparent to anyone who has read The Communist Manifesto.

The original essay is horrible from any historical materialist stand point, in that it convolutes the non-socialist character of the American Revolution with it being "conservative". No serious historian takes that view, and most academics who analyze class relations during the Revolution of 1776--particularly the esteemed Columbia University Professor Charles A. Beard, who wrote the first historical materialist account of the Revolution of 1776, and Brown University Professor Gordon S. Wood--are extremely clear that this was a radical, progressive step forward for human social development.

I desperately encourage both of you to get a hold of Beard's An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution of the United States (http://www.amazon.com/Economic-Interpretation-Constitution-United-States/dp/0029024803) and Wood's The Radicalism of the American Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/Radicalism-American-Revolution-Gordon-Wood/dp/0679736883). I also picked up a copy of Ray Raphael's A People's History of the American Revolution (http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-American-Revolution-Independence/dp/0060004401) recently at a used book sale, and I highly recommend it as a further resource. Both of you badly need to research this event if you're serious about being leftists.I totally agree on the point of needing to look at the Revolution in the context of being a bourgeois Revolution at a point when that class was still in a historically progressive phase.

However, if I can offer some comradely criticism -- there is a lot of disagreement on the left about how to characterize this historical event and so I think it's unproductive to say that people who do not share this perspective are "not serious about being leftists". Afterall, Howard Zinn in "A People's History of the US" to a similarly critical take on the American Revolution and I don't think he wasn't serious or knowledgeable.

That being said, as to putting down farmer uprisings after the Revolution - of course they did! This is what almost all non-working class revolutions do... Revolutions of this sort need to appeal to populist demands in order to rally popular support to the side of the class fighting the revolution. Since land-owners and merchants and the emerging bourgeois are too few in numbers to defeat the British, they have to win over more of the population and so they promise land-reform for poor-farmers and other popular reforms. Once in power, this new ruling class has to then assert its class-dominance and interests over the rest of the population. Shay's rebellion and similar events happened because people who had gone through the revolution discovered that they had just changed one landlord for another and so their pre-revolution grievances remained and festered. The new ruling class had to put down the rebellions to assert their class dominance and interests (like people paying their taxes and rent).

But again that doesn't mean it wasn't progressive in a historical sense. The US Civil War is similar - the same process that allowed the liberation of slaves also allowed northern capital to increase in power dramatically. Both slaves and corporations got rights, the power of the national state that allowed the north to win also allowed the US to take-over Spanish, Mexican, Native American land and send troops against striking workers. But on the scale of history, the war and emancipation was still a progressive move and probably the last revolutionary thing (in the capitalist sense) done by the US ruling class.

[syndicat]

what was "historically progressive" about the American revolution? the various state constitutions were only changed to a small extent from the colonial charters. property qualifications remained in place for voting and for holding office. the huge land holdings of some of the loyalists were confiscated and sold off by the states, but insiders got control of these lands, often through bribes. there was some small amount of land that tenant farmers obtained. also, seizure of Indian lands west of the Alleghenies would provide some opportunities for ordinary farmers, but most of those lands would be sold by speculators or given by the government to capitalist firms. the creation of the centralized Federal state did provide a framework for a common market throughout the USA and capitalist manufacturers were able to grow on that basis. this is "progressive for capitalists."

it allowed land speculators to take over the Indian lands with backing of the federal state, to expand slave based plantation agriculture in the south, and more settlement in the north. this was not "progressive" from an Indian point of view. the Constitution embodied a deal that allowed more importation of slaves and more security for slave owners because federal marshals would go into free states to capture runaway slaves. not sure how "progressive" that was for West Africans sold into slavery. maybe you mean it set the stage for capitalist expansion in North America.

but why was that "progressive"? What is the criterion of being "progressive"? perhaps you mean something like the following. capitalism's dynamic of expansion of firms, expanding their markets, would eventually build up bigger firms where workers are brought together to engage in production where they must work together and cooperate. this would provide a possibility for the emergence of a modern labor movement and modern socialism based on that working class movement. this would finally pose the possibility of transcending class systems.

but there is nothing teleological or inevitable about this. and it's not clear why capitalism itself should be regarded as "progressive."

[Adil3tr]

It moved from feudalism/mercantilism to capitalism, but I would say the real progressive revolution was the civil war, moving very decisively into industrial capitalism.

[chegitz guevara]

Well, you're basing it on your own opinions about what is progressive, as opposed to understanding that progressive is relative, not absolute.

So, some very progressive things about the American revolution.

#1, it began as a levelers revolt.

#2, it was racially mixed ... until Washington got mixed up in it.

#3, it proclaimed the idea that all human beings had rights, even if it failed to live up to that claim

#4, it established for the first time since the Roman Republic that human beings don't need a king or god, it's representative, to rule over them

#5, it inspired the French revolution

#6, it inspired the Latin American revolutions

#7, it broke down old class divisions

No one is saying it was perfect, but it was more than progressive. For its time, it was revolutionary.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

#4, it established for the first time since the Roman Republic that human beings don't need a king or god, it's representative, to rule over them

There were republics in Europe before the American revolution, Venice, Genoa, Novogrod, etc. Elected non heridetary rule was nothing new for the European Elite.

[Invader Zim]

#5, it inspired the French revolution

This is an interesting point of disussion. Would the French revolution happened earlier without the War of Independence? Would the War of Independence have occured, as it did and when it did, without the influence of radical thought derived from the Englightenment in Europe, France in particular? Was the situation in France building enough of its own momenutum to end in revolution without external inspiration?

[B0LSHEVIK]

So, some very progressive things about the American revolution.

#1, it began as a levelers revolt.

#2, it was racially mixed ... until Washington got mixed up in it.

#3, it proclaimed the idea that all human beings had rights, even if it failed to live up to that claim

#4, it established for the first time since the Roman Republic that human beings don't need a king or god, it's representative, to rule over them

#5, it inspired the French revolution

#6, it inspired the Latin American revolutions

#7, it broke down old class divisions

No one is saying it was perfect, but it was more than progressive. For its time, it was revolutionary.

1) Agree.

2) Slavery already existed in the colonies. Were some african-americans tricked into fighting, surely. But I will have to oppose your generalization of 'mixed' brigades during any point of the war.

3) What rights? The right for the landowning white bourgeois to rule the government? Blacks, Indians, Women, etc HAD NO RIGHTS. Your insane...

4) False. Several aristocraices had already been replaced by 'godless' constitutional governments.

5) Possibly. But the two scenarios were wildly different. Might as well ask if the Spanish Civil War somehow influenced Hungary in 56.

6) ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. The Napoleonic wars in Europe from 1799-1815 essentially did more to break Spanish rule than any other event of this time. The aristocracies in the EU, were more afraid of Napoleons imminent threat, and thus all eyes were on the grand old continent. Spain essentially didn't exist in 1810 when New Spain (Mexico-Cental America) began their fight for independence.

7) What class divisons were broken down? As I had already pointed out earlier, several farmer rebellions (most notably Shays) were suppressed by your 'progressive' founders. And besides, whats progressive about an aristocratic democracy?

[L.A.P.]

This was more to piss of my teacher. I realize fully the importance of the American revolution, but it was precisely a capitalist revolution, not simply anti feudal. There was plenty of class conflict within the revolution. This essay didn't express my exact beliefs but you had to kind of be an ass about it. Thanks got saying my essay was terrible.

He has a point though, although the American revolution would be viewed as just bourgeois fighting other bourgeois for today's standards back then it was a pretty progressive movement and was more in the interests of the working class compared to most political movements of that day. This was discussed by Karl Marx for when the wealthy land owners and businessmen overthrew the monarchs and aristocrats and then there would be the working class overthrowing those wealthy land owners and businessmen thus, the path towards communism. Not a bad essay though, I just have some criticisms about it.

[syndicat]

#1, it began as a levelers revolt.

on the contrary. under the various state governments during the "revolution," property qualifications remained in place for voting and taking office (except for Pennsylvania). these remained in place til the time of Andrew Jackson.

Although the numbers of working farmers and artisans elected in state legislators increased, they did nothing to change the class structure of British North American society. there were revolts for debt relief by farmers, such as Shas Rebellion, but this was not what the "revolution" was about. it would be more accurate to say that it was about one section of the elite pushing aside another, more established part of the elite. land speculators wanted to abrogate the British agreement with the Indians that were guarantees of the Indians land rights. there was in fact no "leveliing" movement in the revolution. if you think there was, you should give evidence.



#2, it was racially mixed ... until Washington got mixed up in it.

In the north there were some black participants and slavery was abolished. but slavery was of minor importance in the north. the main states where slaves were present were in the south and slavery was not attacked there. in fact the British recruited 5,000 blacks on promises they would get freedom if they fought for the British. throughout the south the lower class whites and slaves refused to fight for the revolution. the British army won battle after battle in the south til the intervention of the French navy.



#3, it proclaimed the idea that all human beings had rights, even if it failed to live up to that claim

they meant all white males had rights. except that indentured servants were still enslaved.



#4, it established for the first time since the Roman Republic that human beings don't need a king or god, it's representative, to rule over them

you're forgetting about Switzerland. and in fact the monarchical priniciple is still very much a part of the U.S. constitution. there are vast powers of the president that indicate this...such as the right to rule be decree (executive orders), to abrogate treaties without approval of congress, to veto legislation (this was called the "royal prerogative" in Britain).



#5, it inspired the French revolution

except that direct democracy was a very important way in which the lower class asserted itself against both the capitalist and feudal elites in the french revolution. nothing like that happened in the American revolution.



#7, it broke down old class divisions


such as? there was no feudalism to speak of the British North America colonies. there was no feudal class. some small farmers got some of the confiscated lands from tories, imprisonment for debt was abolished. but the class structure itself was not changed. if you think it was, it would be good to point out what.

[chegitz guevara]

1) Agree.

2) Slavery already existed in the colonies. Were some african-americans tricked into fighting, surely. But I will have to oppose your generalization of 'mixed' brigades during any point of the war.

3) What rights? The right for the landowning white bourgeois to rule the government? Blacks, Indians, Women, etc HAD NO RIGHTS. Your insane...

4) False. Several aristocraices had already been replaced by 'godless' constitutional governments.

5) Possibly. But the two scenarios were wildly different. Might as well ask if the Spanish Civil War somehow influenced Hungary in 56.

6) ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE. The Napoleonic wars in Europe from 1799-1815 essentially did more to break Spanish rule than any other event of this time. The aristocracies in the EU, were more afraid of Napoleons imminent threat, and thus all eyes were on the grand old continent. Spain essentially didn't exist in 1810 when New Spain (Mexico-Cental America) began their fight for independence.

7) What class divisons were broken down? As I had already pointed out earlier, several farmer rebellions (most notably Shays) were suppressed by your 'progressive' founders. And besides, whats progressive about an aristocratic democracy?


on the contrary. under the various state governments during the "revolution," property qualifications remained in place for voting and taking office (except for Pennsylvania). these remained in place til the time of Andrew Jackson.

Although the numbers of working farmers and artisans elected in state legislators increased, they did nothing to change the class structure of British North American society. there were revolts for debt relief by farmers, such as Shas Rebellion, but this was not what the "revolution" was about. it would be more accurate to say that it was about one section of the elite pushing aside another, more established part of the elite. land speculators wanted to abrogate the British agreement with the Indians that were guarantees of the Indians land rights. there was in fact no "leveliing" movement in the revolution. if you think there was, you should give evidence.

In the north there were some black participants and slavery was abolished. but slavery was of minor importance in the north. the main states where slaves were present were in the south and slavery was not attacked there. in fact the British recruited 5,000 blacks on promises they would get freedom if they fought for the British. throughout the south the lower class whites and slaves refused to fight for the revolution. the British army won battle after battle in the south til the intervention of the French navy.

they meant all white males had rights. except that indentured servants were still enslaved.

you're forgetting about Switzerland. and in fact the monarchical priniciple is still very much a part of the U.S. constitution. there are vast powers of the president that indicate this...such as the right to rule be decree (executive orders), to abrogate treaties without approval of congress, to veto legislation (this was called the "royal prerogative" in Britain).

except that direct democracy was a very important way in which the lower class asserted itself against both the capitalist and feudal elites in the french revolution. nothing like that happened in the American revolution.

such as? there was no feudalism to speak of the British North America colonies. there was no feudal class. some small farmers got some of the confiscated lands from tories, imprisonment for debt was abolished. but the class structure itself was not changed. if you think it was, it would be good to point out what.

#1, levellers would not be supported by any state government. The Continental Congress took charge of the Revolution in order to stop the leveller revolt from growing and put Washington in charge of the army to keep order. The revolt began from the bottom, not from the top. The revolt had gone on for a year before Congress got involved. Before Washington, the soldiers elected their officers, and replaced them if necessary.

#2, The original revolt in Massachusetts had not a few Black soldiers. When Washington arrived, he discharged them.

#3, the Declaration of Independence makes no distinction between man and woman, between white and Black. The Declaration of Independence has repeatedly been held up by people around the world and here at home to show how the U.S. has fallen short of its ideals.

#4, the trader republics of Italy and elsewhere were generally ruled by lower level aristocracy and owed fealty to some higher authority. For example, the Italian city states owed allegiance to the Emperor. The only place in Europe where truly democratic republics existed was in the six forest cantons in Switzerland, and honestly, no one paid them any attention.

#5, the American Revolution caused the French revolution in several ways. Most importantly, the French support for the war drove the French government deeply into debt and the revolution resulted from that crisis. In addition many French revolutionaries looked to the American republic for inspiration.

#6, the level of influence may not be as great, but when they call people, the George Washington of South America, there is clearly influence going on. The example of the United States proved to Latin American elites they could run their own countries. The Napoleonic Wars gave them the ability to break away.

#7, prior to the revolution, class relations were more feudal in character. People respected their betters, called the master/mistress, sir, etc. After the revolution, proletarians refused to continue speaking in such deferential terms. They claimed the right as free and equal people to be treated with respect.

A great book to read on the subject is A People's History of the American Revolution.

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

#4, the trader republics of Italy and elsewhere were generally ruled by lower level aristocracy and owed fealty to some higher authority. For example, the Italian city states owed allegiance to the Emperor. The only place in Europe where truly democratic republics existed was in the six forest cantons in Switzerland, and honestly, no one paid them any attention.

Which 'Emperor' are we refering to? the Holy Roman Empire? The Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire?

[B0LSHEVIK]

#2, The original revolt in Massachusetts had not a few Black soldiers. When Washington arrived, he discharged them.

#3, the Declaration of Independence makes no distinction between man and woman, between white and Black. The Declaration of Independence has repeatedly been held up by people around the world and here at home to show how the U.S. has fallen short of its ideals.


#5, the American Revolution caused the French revolution in several ways. Most importantly, the French support for the war drove the French government deeply into debt and the revolution resulted from that crisis. In addition many French revolutionaries looked to the American republic for inspiration.

#6, the level of influence may not be as great, but when they call people, the George Washington of South America, there is clearly influence going on. The example of the United States proved to Latin American elites they could run their own countries. The Napoleonic Wars gave them the ability to break away.

#7, prior to the revolution, class relations were more feudal in character. People respected their betters, called the master/mistress, sir, etc. After the revolution, proletarians refused to continue speaking in such deferential terms. They claimed the right as free and equal people to be treated with respect.



2) Cite plz. At least you admit the founders were racist.

3) Oh really. Yeah, tell that to the Jim Crowe/segregated South or the native americans. And boy oh boy, did people like Franco and Pinochet hold up the declaration! You are aware that while the founding fathers deliberated over the 3/5 compromise (look it up), they had slaves back home working the ground and tending the house, right? Classical double-speak.

4) The first 'godless' parliament was held in 1066 in England! And the magna carta of 1215 was a 'natural rights' document that guranteed habeus corpus and many individual rights. By 1721 the govt of England was no longer, in your words, 'devine.' You really need to take a British history class from their perspective. It would give you so much hindsight into the fact that many of the mythological claims today and even then regarding the American revolution are based on American igonorace of historical facts.

5) Nonsense. I never said it didnt have some effect. I simply stated that you exaggerate the claim. The ideas that inspired the French rev were those of the enlightment. The 'founders' didnt conjure up enlightment, they adopted it from Europe. The fall of the Ancien Regime can be mainly blamed on the aristocacies refusal to allow the emerging capitalist class any power in the 'estates' scheme. These new capitalists, allied themselves with intellectuals and peasants who were being inspired by the enlightment, not George Washington.

6) Who calls anyone the 'george washington of south america?' Lol. Thats really funny, because the only people who describe any foreign leader through the eyes of an American, are Americans!!! Im sure you'll agree that a German, might see a Bolivar like a 'Fredierch the Great.' So, bluntly said, you have American blinders.

7) Oh, so there was a social revolution too? You're unreal. And, even if there had been a 'proletarian movement,' (instead of a mobs of angry confused farmers) the eltist founders would've surely suppressed it immediately after they had achieved their goals. (which they did to an extent)

[syndicat]

#7, prior to the revolution, class relations were more feudal in character. People respected their betters, called the master/mistress, sir, etc. After the revolution, proletarians refused to continue speaking in such deferential terms. They claimed the right as free and equal people to be treated with respect.



this is a completely idealist notion of class. in France the feudal class of landed aristocrats had the following powers: they controlled the local courts, all the peasants in that area could be called upon -- forced -- to engage in forms of personal, uncompensated service, there were special rents or fees that the aristocracy could collect from peasants even if a peasant nominally owned his own land. the Catholic Church hierarchy also could force the entire population to pay tithes to support them.

there was also a mercantilist system of checkpoints around towns where taxes were collected on goods coming and going from towns and this prevented any real free market.

the feudal aristocracy were also a separate chamber of representatives in the nominal legislature, the Estates General. the capitalists were "commoners" who were only represented in the third estate. the clergy were the second estate, so the fedual church hierarchy and landowners controlled 2 of the 3 houses of the legislature.

because 2/3 of the population of France were the farming peasantry, the main struggle was over the effort of the peasantry to have all the feudal rights and fees abolished. it took four years of struggle to achieve this.

nothing like this sort of class structure existed in the British colonies by the late 1700s. the only threat to a free market was possible trade restrictions between states and the US Constitution was set up to ensure this wouldn't happen.


#1, levellers would not be supported by any state government. The Continental Congress took charge of the Revolution in order to stop the leveller revolt from growing and put Washington in charge of the army to keep order. The revolt began from the bottom, not from the top. The revolt had gone on for a year before Congress got involved. Before Washington, the soldiers elected their officers, and replaced them if necessary.


you still haven't provided any evidence there was a "levelling" movement. in the French revolution there were activsts who openly promoted an Agrarian Law that would limit land ownership to 180 acres. the capitalist-controlled national legislature actually had to pass a law making it a capital offense to advocate this.

in the American revolution there was no actual movement for equaliing or limiting land holdings. it's true that the framers of the Constitition feared that such a movement might arise, based on the various rebellions. typically the rebellions were movements of indebted farmers for debt relief, as with Shays rebellion....which occurred AFTER the revolution (it occurred a few months before the constituitonal convention in 1787). the people in that rebellion, many of them, were veterans of the revolutionary war. this inspired them to stick up for what they perceived as their rights. they believed the state legislature was not listening to their pleas for debt relief (it wasn't since it was controlled by wealthy Boston merchants and lawyers).

a movement against the propertied class in the American context was always inchoate, hadn't really congealed in any clear form.

during the English revolution in the 1600s the levelers and diggers were the more radical element. some of them did advocate for community ownership of the land. nothing like this happened in the American revolution. Alexander Hamilton pointed out that the decolonization effort in north america wasn't really a revolution since there was no change in the class structure of the country. everyone's "interests" remained the same, he said.

[Luís Henrique]

And it was a civil war, not of moral or principled belief, but for self interest of the founders, of course, draped in a flag.

Well, I hope a socialist revolution will be a civil war, not out of moral or principled beliefs, but for the self interest of the workers. Don't you think so?

Luís Henrique

[B0LSHEVIK]

Well, I hope a socialist revolution will be a civil war, not out of moral or principled beliefs, but for the self interest of the workers. Don't you think so?

Luís Henrique

Sounds good, but we wont have a flag. We'll have only our principles in working class solidarity to unite us. Instead of say, greedy self-interest, or reluctance to pay up the royal tax.

[Luís Henrique]

I certainly have a flag.

It is a red one instead of bleu-blanc-rouge, but it is still a flag. And it still represents material interests, instead of moral beliefs.

A bandeira do meu partido
É vermelha, de um sonho antigo
Da cor da hora que se levanta.
Levanta agora, levanta aurora!

Luís Henrique

[ComradeOm]

Which 'Emperor' are we refering to? the Holy Roman Empire? The Roman Empire/Byzantine Empire?Chegitz is referring to the Holy Roman Empire but he's wrong. Imperial influence in Italy (outside the Tyrol at least) was on the wane from around the 14th C and formally ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

Chegitz is referring to the Holy Roman Empire but he's wrong. Imperial influence in Italy (outside the Tyrol at least) was on the wane from around the 14th C and formally ended with the Peace of Westphalia in 1648

Yeah, thats what confused me, as HRE influence in the Italian peninsula was fairly minimal from the 14th C as you said. It hardly was a major player compared to Venice, Genoa, Milan, Norman Sicily, The Vatican etc.

[syndicat]

i've been making my way thru "The Unknown American Revolution" by Marxist historian Gary Nash. in his chapter on the new state constitutions formed at the time of the break with Britain, he mentions that the farmers and artisans involved in the militia movement in Pennsylvania gained the upper hand in the writing of the new state constitution. Some of their more radical activists did propose an agrarian law, which would limit the amount of land someone could own. in a predominatly agrarian society such as the U.S. 200 years ago, this was an attack on the elite.

but these radicals were not able to even persuade the farmer and artisan movement they were a part of. Pennsylvania and Vermont had the most populist constitutions and the plebeian working farmer and artisan element were stronger there than in the other states. But even so, they did not implement any "leveling" proposal, despite the fears of the colonial elites.

[deadmeat1471]

Good post, agree on most points, especially about the new elite replacing the old. I think its rather important to remember that there was nothing so elusive as freedom at the heart of the Revolution, though increased freedoms did spring from it.