American Revolution and Class War

[Aussie Trotskyist]

Well, was the American Revolution a Class War? Could one see it as the American bourgeoisie resisting the Feudal establishments in Britain?

[Ostrinski]

The American Revolution was not a social revolution, but a bourgeois-democratic political separatist movement from the mother nation. It did not change the socio-economic composition of society, just the political structures and methods of governance.

[skitty]

Maybe not much more than the wealthiest colonists getting tired of the Crown taking a piece o' the action?

[Ostrinski]

Maybe not much more than the wealthiest colonists getting tired of the Crown taking a piece o' the action?"No taxation without representation!" :lol:

It essentially began as a revolt against very harsh taxes on imports and such. The bourgeois intelligentsia were able to steer it in the direction of republicanism and independence.

Not to mention that the British colonies in the western hemisphere had developed economically to the point that it could facilitate political independence as they produced domestically many goods that merchants from England, France, The Netherlands, and Spain desired. The British government forbade them from trading with these folks but attempts to overcome it were overcome by smuggling (they even smuggled goods to trade with British merchants :p ).

[skitty]

Wasn't John Hancock the wealthiest man in the colonies; and rumored to be a smuggler?

[Ostrinski]

Hancock owned a few thousand acres of land and a few slaves and indeed one of the wealthiest men of the colonies. Not sure if he was the wealthiest, though. He inherited Hancock Manor from his uncle when he died. He was the wealthiest Whig in Boston and was targeted by the Customs Board during the protests and boycotts of the Townshend Acts for this reason.

He was charged with smuggling in the aftermath of all that but the charges were later dropped. There are myths that he was indeed a smuggler but there is no evidence to sustain the claim.

[Aussie Trotskyist]

The American Revolution was not a social revolution, but a bourgeois-democratic political separatist movement from the mother nation. It did not change the socio-economic composition of society, just the political structures and methods of governance.

Where the English Civil Wars bourgeois revolutions?

[Ostrinski]

The English Civil War (1642-1651) was indeed a bourgeois revolution in my view as well as in the view of the Marxist historians. It pitted the forces of the church and the two Charles monarchies against the forces of the Long and Rump parliaments respectively.

The former certainly represented the codified interests of the feudal and gentry class and the latter to the bourgeoisie in kind, but I really don't know asmuch about the English Civil War as I would like but if you contact the user Invader Zim who is a historian by profession and knows a lot about European history then I'm sure he could give you some higher quality answers.

[skitty]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and ask if the religious component overwhelmed that of the political? You had the Charles', the Church of England and possible Catholic influence versus Protestants(Puritans?).

[Blake's Baby]

Nah, religion may have been one of the trigger-points but the 'English Revolution' was distinctly about the rising power of the bourgeoisie. The Puritans were overwhelmingly found among the commercial interests of eastern England and the old aristocracy of the north and west overwhelmingly supported the King (whether they were actually Catholic or Anglican).

I some respects, going back to the American Revolution, there was a bourgeois/aristocratic element to it. Britain may have been bourgeois by 1776 (capitalism developed in England from the mid-14th century, the bourgeois revolution in Britian lasted from more or less 1640-90, and the aristocratic counter-revolution wasn't defeated until 1746), but its relations with the colonies were still dominated by a very 'aristocratic' relationship. The bourgeois revolution was never totally completed in Britain - the eventual settlement was a mix of bourgeois and feudal elements.

The bourgeoisie justifes its rule on the overcoming of feudal structures (on the ideology of meritocracy not aristocracy) but the lack of representative government in the colonies meant that the bourgeoisie was stymied in its attempts to match its economic power with political power. So even though there was a bourgeois government in Britain, that doesn't mean everything about its relationship with the American colonies was what we would consider bourgeois.

[B5C]

Wasn't John Hancock the wealthiest man in the colonies; and rumored to be a smuggler?

No, he was not. He was supporter of the smuggler cause. By the way, the term smuggler applied during the revolution is people who purchased cheap Dutch and French tea over British tea.

The Tea Act was created to save the East India Company from losing business from cheaper illegal sources of tea and maintain its monopoly on the tea business to the colonies. Many smugglers of non-British tea believed the tax would destroy their business of providing cheaper tea, so they revolted.

The best revolutionary who I think help workers battle against the aristocracy would be Thomas Paine.

"Mightier than the sword – the impact of the ideas of Thomas Paine on the American Revolution"
http://www.marxist.com/thomas-paine-american-revolution.htm

[Os Cangaceiros]

John Hancock also supposedly kept a huge bowl of alcoholic punch by his bedside at all times.

It's actually kind of amazing how much alcohol those guys drank back in the day.

[B5C]

John Hancock also supposedly kept a huge bowl of alcoholic punch by his bedside at all times.

It's actually kind of amazing how much alcohol those guys drank back in the day.

Because it was safer to drink beer and wine than the actual water supply.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and ask if the religious component overwhelmed that of the political? You had the Charles', the Church of England and possible Catholic influence versus Protestants(Puritans?).The political conflict was expressed in religious terms as was common for early bourgoise revolutions (as well as almost any "religious" conflict I can think of in histroy) because of the connection between the Roman church and the various feudal regimes and the system in general. When God ordanes that the feudal caste system is the unaltering order of the world and a new class arises that needs a different system... well time to get a new god.


Maybe not much more than the wealthiest colonists getting tired of the Crown taking a piece o' the action?
It was a "real" revolution in the sense that all classes in society came into play and the ultimate goals were contested and meant different things to different groups in society - even among sections of the North American eliete. I think probably the colonial elietes who supported the revolution were probably the last important group to join the revolt - there had been ongoing revolts of small farmers against British judges (who were appointed from England and had power over land disputes and so on that impacted small farmers a great deal) - shiphands, vagabonds and town apprentices and other proto-workers often rioted and strongly resented the Crown and the colonial elietes - merchants and professionals also resented the dictates from England which impacted their striving for more power and wealth. What the revolutionary elietes were able to do is - as Lvov said - unite enough of these groups behind their program for independance. The merchants and so on resented the Tea-Tax for obvious economic reasons but the poor and the mobile population (i.e. "the mob." - traveling laborers) just hated tea for the wealth it represented (someone looking for work can't carry the supplies necissary in those days to make their own tea, so it was mostly enjoyed by the wealthy - terrible watery "beer" for everyone else). To the small farmers, the eliete promised an end to the rule of english appointed judges and so on. So in the areas where there were many sort of yeomen farmers and poor laborers, the revolution had a sort of populist appeal. Of course the elietes weren't really interested in a better deal for these people, they just wanted the popular support and so after they were able to establish their own political hegemony, small farmers revolted against the new government which eventually lead to the U.S. through the constitution which established a political force capable of putting down such insurrections and maintaining political control while also trying to regain popular support through the Bill of Rights. And "popular" means just land and property owners in this sense - they obviously didn't even consider slaves and vagabonds and women and natives in this because holding land to them meant having a stake and so you'd have at least some interest in how governing happened - to grant such rights to the propertyless would to them like if the U.S. gave voting rights in US elections to people in Brazil or some other country... it just wouldn't have fit into their logic.

[Art Vandelay]

John Hancock also supposedly kept a huge bowl of alcoholic punch by his bedside at all times.

It's actually kind of amazing how much alcohol those guys drank back in the day.

I wish I lived in a time period when men just drank all day long. It would be awesome.

[skitty]

I wish I lived in a time period when men just drank all day long. It would be awesome.
You've got to read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

[Lucretia]

There has been quite a bit of debate as to whether or not the American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution. Consult the works of Allan Kulikoff and Herbert Aptheker for the view that it was. Charles Post, Neil Davidson, John Ashworth, and others argue the opposite.

[skitty]

[QUOTE=B5C;2567912]

The best revolutionary who I think help workers battle against the aristocracy would be Thomas Paine.

A while back I found something written by Tom Paine that surprised me:
http://www.constitution.org/tp/agjustice.htm

[Art Vandelay]

You've got to read Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas.

Oh I have, its my favorite book ever, actually.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Because it was safer to drink beer and wine than the actual water supply.

Yeah. George Washington spent about 7% of his salary on liquor, supposedly. Since his salary was about a million dollars in today's money (25,000 dollars then), that's a pretty staggering amount. I also read an account of exactly how much liquor, port, punch, etc. was ordered during the Constitutional Convention, and it was sick! I guess the morality of the day didn't forbid getting hammered and passing out face-first in a Philadelphia gutter.