The American Revolution

[which doctor]

So...I was sitting in my Honors US History class yesterday bored as usual as the teacher was talking about the events that led up to the American Revolution. And my teacher how many of the violent protests that were conducted back then would today be classified as terrorist acts. And I thought, how true that is, Samuel Adams and his Sons of Liberty were essentially a terrorist group. They killed people, burned buildings, and destroyed property. My teacher also mentioned how the violent protests were more powerful than the non-violent protests.The minutemen also used guerilla tactics to defeat the British. He also sid that only a minority of the population was actively for the revolution.

If the first American Revolution was possible, than a second American Revolution is also possible. Some of us say that we need the masses, but in fact all we need is the masses to not oppose us, to not get in our way.

[Psy]

Originally posted by Fist of [email protected] 24 2005, 01:50 PM
So...I was sitting in my Honors US History class yesterday bored as usual as the teacher was talking about the events that led up to the American Revolution. And my teacher how many of the violent protests that were conducted back then would today be classified as terrorist acts. And I thought, how true that is, Samuel Adams and his Sons of Liberty were essentially a terrorist group. They killed people, burned buildings, and destroyed property. My teacher also mentioned how the violent protests were more powerful than the non-violent protests.The minutemen also used guerilla tactics to defeat the British. He also sid that only a minority of the population was actively for the revolution.

If the first American Revolution was possible, than a second American Revolution is also possible. Some of us say that we need the masses, but in fact all we need is the masses to not oppose us, to not get in our way.
The American revolution was just the US land owners wanting to have more power and didn't want their profits going to Britian, this is why there was no huge support for it. The French Revolution even though corrupted at least was suppose to liberate the masses, thus had the popular support of the people and at least there they got to kill the rich.

[bolshevik butcher]

It was a beugoirse revolution. The next stage in the class eovlution of society.

[Technique3055]

It was cappies fighting imperialists. Hmm...

But yeah, you are right, by modern standards, the American revolutionaries (can we really call them revolutionaries?) were terrorists

[workersunity]

for the masses to not get in our way? how legitimate is a revolution when it compromises a small section of society, thatll be a Coup, a revolution without the masses will never succeed nor install socialism, because the masses need to take an active step in it, they are the ones making history. If you just got a few dudes, or a few hundred people, aint shit gonna be done,

[Morpheus]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 02:56 PM
The American revolution was just the US land owners wanting to have more power and didn't want their profits going to Britian, this is why there was no huge support for it.
There were also American merchants, businessmen, military officers & slaveowners who supported the revolution for similar reasons. The local ruling class wasn't completely without support from the masses, there were some white farmers & workers who supported the revolution. They felt betrayed when all it did was replace the tyrants across the ocean with tyrants at home, and so they launched things like Shay's Rebellion. Don't forget the French, either. The insurgents probably would have lost without French support. You could consider the whole thing a proxy war between the two empires.

[which doctor]

I didn't mention that many of the people who supported it were wealthy businessmen, but there were working class too. And this of course was not a communist revolution, but they were fighting to for freedom and to eliminate imperalism. I personally think some of the early revolutionaries would be disgraced as the state of the US now. We are the United Kingdom of our day. And on another note about the masses, unfortunetly the masses often don't know what is good for them. And that is who we are fighting for, the people. We know that communism is good for them so that is why we fight for it.

[Reds]

The main conplant of the colonists was they were taxed with no repersentation in the british parliment. Which is ironic becase thats that one of the main issues in washington D.C only its the us congress rather than parliment.

[LibertyOrDeath]

And on another note about the masses, unfortunetly the masses often don't know what is good for them. And that is who we are fighting for, the people. We know that communism is good for them so that is why we fight for it.

This has got me curious. Why would we need to "fight" the masses to accept something they wouldn't otherwise choose on their own? Cannot communism survive on its own merits? I mean, if we are convinced that Che spoke the truth, then can't we simply sew the truth and let it reap its good fruit by its own power?

I don't mean to be a party pooper, and maybe I'm just more of a noob than I thought. But it seems to me that if we feel the need to cram communist revolution down peoples' unwilling throats, then we either have a poor opinion of our fellow man, or a poor opinion of our cause. Either way, the result could hardly be called liberation.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Originally posted by Psy+Sep 24 2005, 02:56 PM--> (Psy @ Sep 24 2005, 02:56 PM)
Fist of [email protected] 24 2005, 01:50 PM
So...I was sitting in my Honors US History class yesterday bored as usual as the teacher was talking about the events that led up to the American Revolution. And my teacher how many of the violent protests that were conducted back then would today be classified as terrorist acts. And I thought, how true that is, Samuel Adams and his Sons of Liberty were essentially a terrorist group. They killed people, burned buildings, and destroyed property. My teacher also mentioned how the violent protests were more powerful than the non-violent protests.The minutemen also used guerilla tactics to defeat the British. He also sid that only a minority of the population was actively for the revolution.

If the first American Revolution was possible, than a second American Revolution is also possible. Some of us say that we need the masses, but in fact all we need is the masses to not oppose us, to not get in our way.
The American revolution was just the US land owners wanting to have more power and didn't want their profits going to Britian, this is why there was no huge support for it. The French Revolution even though corrupted at least was suppose to liberate the masses, thus had the popular support of the people and at least there they got to kill the rich. [/b]
I think there was much more mass support for the revolution than most accounts credit. THis many not be true of the south and lower middle colonies but definately in New England where there are examples of dual power, riots, and so on preceeding the revolution by at least a decade. By the very nature of a revolution, people can't stay fense-sitters for long and even if the actual forces fighting the british were small they had to have a large base of support in order to suceede (like the Iraqis now).

[LibertyOrDeath]

"...even if the actual forces fighting the british were small they had to have a large base of support in order to suceede"

Actually, what they had was motivation. This the Brittish lacked. Good ole human motivation -- the teeth behind the basic laws of economics.

[LibertyOrDeath]

But back to my earlier post, why should we feel the need to force the virtues of communism upon unwilling masses? Will not education suffice?

Furthermore, how can we have a legitimate gripe against Bush for his imperialistic action in Iraq ("You can't force democracy on people!") if we're just gonna do the same thing here? Let's be honest -- any time force is used to instil a philosophy, that force (and those responsible for it) constitutes tyranny over the mind. What are we to conclude, here? That Che was a tyrant or something?

[revwarrior]

The American revolutionaries were NOT terrorists. The proper definition of terrorists is: a group of people attacking innocent civilians and non-military targets to further their cause.

The revolutionaries did not target anything but the British military. Your history teacher is full of bovine excrement.

[Psy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:03 PM
The American revolutionaries were NOT terrorists. The proper definition of terrorists is: a group of people attacking innocent civilians and non-military targets to further their cause.

The revolutionaries did not target anything but the British military. Your history teacher is full of bovine excrement.
What about the Boston tea party? The tea was private property of the East India Company.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 08:03 AM
The American revolutionaries were NOT terrorists. The proper definition of terrorists is: a group of people attacking innocent civilians and non-military targets to further their cause.

The revolutionaries did not target anything but the British military. Your history teacher is full of bovine excrement.
Sounds like somebody is reading an extremely whitewashed version of history. Don't believe everything your text book says. The American revolutionaries tarred and feathered people, launched arson attacks in britain and the colonies and so on.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 10:03 AM
The American revolutionaries were NOT terrorists. The proper definition of terrorists is: a group of people attacking innocent civilians and non-military targets to further their cause.

The revolutionaries did not target anything but the British military. Your history teacher is full of bovine excrement.
that is not true, they tared and feathered the tax agents, they arent a part of the military. tar and feathering, while it seems like all fun and games is actually pretty bad, it takes your skin off when you take the tar of.

[revwarrior]

Tax agents are agents of the government, thus a legitimate target. East India Tea Company was supported by the government through subsidies. Again, they were NOT terrorists by any definition. They did not pick out innocent targets. the Loyalists they attacked were looked on as subversives to the cause.

the British were notorious for killing people who didn't believe their way, for taking rights from British citizens, and for destroying personal property just because they THOUGHT the property owners were revolutionary sympathizers. The families of many of the signers of the DoI were also imprisoned just for being related.

Have you read both the People's History of the U.S. AND the Patriot's History of the U.S.? I have, along with a few other books from both sides of the debate.

[bcbm]

the Loyalists they attacked were looked on as subversives to the cause.

So because the revolutionaries viewed them as subversives, they suddenly become legitimate military targets?

By the way, non-military targets of any nature, supported by the state or not, when attacked would still be considered "terrorism." You're using a pretty stiff definition that isn't the common usage of the word and thus trying to frame the debate to suit your view.

[Red Powers]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:03 PM
The American revolutionaries were NOT terrorists. The proper definition of terrorists is: a group of people attacking innocent civilians and non-military targets to further their cause.

The revolutionaries did not target anything but the British military. Your history teacher is full of bovine excrement.

The American revolutionaries were NOT terrorists.

I would say that they were indeed terrorists



The revolutionaries did not target anything but the British military.


This is just wrong. Tax collectors were tarred and feathered in the run up to the actual war. In addition mobs of patriots attacked and destroyed the homes of well to do loyalists, the Governor of Massachusetts for one. Seems like terrorism to me.

Also, from what I've read 1/3 of the population supported the revolution, 1/3 were neutral, and 1/3 were Tory/loyalists, many of whom migrated to Canada.

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 02:43 PM
Tax agents are agents of the government, thus a legitimate target. East India Tea Company was supported by the government through subsidies. Again, they were NOT terrorists by any definition. They did not pick out innocent targets. the Loyalists they attacked were looked on as subversives to the cause.

the British were notorious for killing people who didn't believe their way, for taking rights from British citizens, and for destroying personal property just because they THOUGHT the property owners were revolutionary sympathizers. The families of many of the signers of the DoI were also imprisoned just for being related.

Have you read both the People's History of the U.S. AND the Patriot's History of the U.S.? I have, along with a few other books from both sides of the debate.
if you think that, then you could say wtc workers were legitimate targets because they helped globalization. and yes ive read a peoples history. not the other though

[slim]

If you want to read about British imperialist oppression then read about India or Ireland. These two nations suffered the worst atrocities.

In India i would say the worst atrocity was strapping rebels to cannons before firing.

In Ireland, well we could go on for years, the Brits nearest colony was always the most rebellious. The first thing to mind is the commander of the garrison of Cork going out in his car and shooting peasants in a field for being worse than dogs.

Do chara,

Slim. Sil Anmachadhra.

[Pinky]

I have a question. It seems that this thread has taken two paths.


but in fact all we need is the masses to not oppose us, to not get in our way.

and


Why would we need to "fight" the masses to accept something they wouldn't otherwise choose on their own?

On one side, we have revolutionaries. On the other we have what we revolt against.

In the middle are all these sheep. When the sheep get hurt, whom ever doing the hurting is a thug or a terroist.

but that is beside the point. This is about Revolution (now) vs. Revolution (then).

the victors of the Revolution (then) are the Capitolist that should be the loosers now. It seems that these (now) and (then) are apples and oranges.

Then, you had semi-oppressed populace.
Now, Americans are fat and happy. They do what they want when they want.

As much *****ing as the sheep do. Do you really think they will stand by if they think the "fat and happy" status might change?

[Shortcake]

Originally posted by Psy+Sep 25 2005, 03:54 PM--> (Psy @ Sep 25 2005, 03:54 PM)
[email protected] 25 2005, 02:03 PM
The American revolutionaries were NOT terrorists. The proper definition of terrorists is: a group of people attacking innocent civilians and non-military targets to further their cause.

The revolutionaries did not target anything but the British military. Your history teacher is full of bovine excrement.
What about the Boston tea party? The tea was private property of the East India Company.[/b]
The East India Co. was a front for it's owners, all members of the House of Lords, and all rich landowners in Britian. It was their ownership and manipulation that resulted in the extortionist taxes that the colonists were rebelling against. So while not technically a British Military target, they were certainly (albeit indirectly) agents of the Crown.

[La Comédie Noire]

The American Reveloution was good in my opinion, but it's been shamed since then. A second reveloution is possible and probably will happen, you know If Bush does'nt gun us all down first.

[Pinky]

Some would gun back.

[MKS]

The British were taxing the Colonies to pay for the French and Indian Wars which nearly bankruptd England. The taxes werent very high either. Also one could make the conclusion that if the American Revolution failed and remianed under British control slavery would have ended much sooner than it did.

The American Revolution was a war fought for the property rights of rich white men. As usual it was the working classes and poor who fought and died for the "cause". It was one oligarchy against another.

[La Comédie Noire]

What you just said is true but they also added the bill of rights because people weren't just about to let a new tyrant in and further civil rights movements have brought much more. The rich white man doe'snt want us to finish what they started, because they feel, no they know, they are only a temporary power structure in only one stage of reveloution.

The American Reveloution Is Not Over, Until It Is Complete!

And I think now is as good a time as any to move on to the next stage.

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 26 2005, 06:06 PM
What you just said is true but they also added the bill of rights because people weren't just about to let a new tyrant in and further civil rights movements have brought much more.
Yeah, but the same constitution also excluded over half the population from voting. It had a bill of rights, yes, but that didn't apply to women, African-Americans, Native Americans, or non-property holders. It further didn't apply, until the landmark Brown v. Board, fully to state action, only federal action. The populace at large had virtually no rights.

Not only that, it established one of the most undemocratic institutions currently disguising itself as the opposite: the electoral college. I once raised this point with my constitutional law professor, and he dismissed it out of hand; claiming that it hadn't affected the outcome of an election in over a hundred years. I guess he had egg on his face after the 2000 election.

At any rate, George Carlin once describe the so-called Founding Fathers as "stunningly and embarassingly full of shit." I tend to agree, especially since the only reason we have any civil liberties at all is because of the civil disobedience of over 200 years of populist movements. Civil liberties which, I might add, Americans seem to be all too willing to give away in exchange for the illusion of security.

[Martin Blank]

It's really easy for us, here in the 21st century, to look back over 200 years and attack the Founders and Framers for their obvious problems -- obvious, that is, from where we stand today. But to understand the revolutionary character of the early American revolutionaries, we have to understand what was "obvious" and "common" for the latter half of the 19th century. Also, there was a Second Revolution in the U.S., from 1861 to 1877. We commonly refer to it as the Civil War and Reconstruction.

Miles

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 09:03 AM
The American revolutionaries were NOT terrorists. The proper definition of terrorists is: a group of people attacking innocent civilians and non-military targets to further their cause.
Let's check your definition

ter·ror·ism (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

Or you could take the literal definition of "Causes terror".

[La Comédie Noire]

Yes but like I said It's not over yet think about it in these terms

we went from a colony to a republic(In national goverment) and now we either stop bush from making it an empire or w elet him do it

I beleive very much in democracy which is why I'd hate to have an empire.

so thats why I say the american reveloution is not complete, because we have not yet gained total democracy abroad only in local elections and state elections. We had checks and balances to make sure that the republic couldn't become corrupt but Bush is trying to change that as all people for an empire do.

So I say this fight the United States Empire with every atom of your strength, Refuse to be pleased with the republic it is now, and fight for democracy abroad. O cours eif your not from america you don't have to care but if your in a 3rd world country that just so happens to have some natural resource I'd be ready to beat back the Empire.

the 2000 election showed us how fast the people's opinion dosen't matter in a republic.

Just go watch star wars, it explains alot.

[MKS]

we went from a colony to a republic(In national goverment) and now we either stop bush from making it an empire or w elet him do it

America became an Empire after WWII. Its imperial oppression has destoryed(or helped destroy)many nations in South America, Africa, Eastern Europe and Asia. Bush is just doing what every President since FDR has done; sustain and strenghten American influence around the world. Republicans and DEmocrats are both responsible for the hegenomy of the American Empire.


so thats wthe american reveloution is not complete, because we have not yet gained total democracy abroad only in local elections and state elections.hy I say

There is no real democracy in State elections. Representative Democracy (which is what runs the Republic now) is not real democracy.

The American Revolution ended with the British surrender at Yorktown. What has been going on since then is the build up of an Imperial nation, and the strengthening of an Oligarchy that remains in power to this day.

America as a nation needs to be dismantled. A new Revolution needs to take place and the people need to take the power.


Also, there was a Second Revolution in the U.S., from 1861 to 1877. We commonly refer to it as the Civil War and Reconstruction.

The American Civil War was not the 2nd Revolution. It was a Civil War fought between the Federal government of the USA and the State Confederation of the South (CSA). It was a group of states trying to excerise their rights (however racist and inhumane they were) over the power of the Federal government. The south could call it their War for Independence, but it was not the 2nd American Revolution.

The American Revolution was a success for the white property owners who initiated the war. It was a great defeat for African Americans, women, Native Americans, workers, Mexicans, non property owners and poor people. All these groups were oppressed, had land stolen from them, and at times were victims of genocide.

The United States of America=A great evil unleashed on humanity. The creation of a neo-liberal Empire that allows for complete moral ambiguity and at times direct aggression and terror.

[La Comédie Noire]

The Civil Rights Movements and Protests have shown we are fighting harder than ever against the goverment. It has been building up to an Empire It Is not yet declared itself an Empire but with Bush's move into Iraq It might as well be. Representative democracy Is The republic, it is not a form of it. I do agree with you a reveloution needs tot ake place, which is why I say the American Reveloution is not complete it is only in a phase of corrupt republic with a capitalist power structure looming over it. But thats what a reveloution is, not one swift act, but many. If you live In america I urge you to carry the message


Fight! The Empire It Is Becoming.(or Is, as you have stated)

Refuse! To be pleased with the Corrupt Republic it is now.(we can agree on that)

Demand! The Democracy It should be.(this last one can also work with communism)

This of course is only one tactic for one battle front. As for how it pertains to Communism, I am a Communist Sympathizer(not in the sense I think it's a sickness) but in the sense it is on the right track, of course If I find the movement fails I'll be all for Communism. Anything that empowers the people

And I also agree with you democrats and republicans might as well be the same, they've both been bought out by big business but youc an refer to it as our little friend "Illusion Of Choice"

As for america being a great evil, well I don;t beleive in evil. But I will tell you it is becoming, or is depends on how you look at it, an empire of Injustice.

So any suggestions to the movement would be a help but I think we can both agree on fighting Empires Of Injustice.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 11:19 PM

Also, there was a Second Revolution in the U.S., from 1861 to 1877. We commonly refer to it as the Civil War and Reconstruction.

The American Civil War was not the 2nd Revolution. It was a Civil War fought between the Federal government of the USA and the State Confederation of the South (CSA). It was a group of states trying to excerise their rights (however racist and inhumane they were) over the power of the Federal government. The south could call it their War for Independence, but it was not the 2nd American Revolution.

The American Revolution was a success for the white property owners who initiated the war. It was a great defeat for African Americans, women, Native Americans, workers, Mexicans, non property owners and poor people. All these groups were oppressed, had land stolen from them, and at times were victims of genocide.

The United States of America=A great evil unleashed on humanity. The creation of a neo-liberal Empire that allows for complete moral ambiguity and at times direct aggression and terror.
I suggest that comrades decide for themselves by reading Eric Foner and W.E.B. DuBois on Reconstruction.

Miles

[slim]

The thing is, the same thing has happened before,

The United States of America is largely based on the ideals of the Roman Republic. There is a senate and a national emblem is the eagle.

I believe that America is now going into the corrupt stages of the Republic. An Empire may rise. This is where we come in. History never exactly repeats itself. We will destroy the corruption and bring about leftist freedom.

[metalero]

now that you mentioned american revolution, I would like to refer to some of the "founding fathers". I read somewhere that Jefferson was a hard-line racist, of those who didn´t regard blacks as human for they had no soul and some other insane things like that. Besides, Washignton sent troops to exterminate what was left from one the greatest native american culture, the Iroquis.
This may sound radical, But the United States independence war didn´t start about the class struggle, nor the search for social justice, not even to liberate people and territory, but rather came out of Tea conflict; It was a war between economical empires to control the North American market, the indiscriminate exploitation of its natural resources and the anihilation of native cultures in order to take their ancestral lands.
I think James Madison was the most progressive leader at the time. he said something like "The day the Tiranny and Opression come to this land would in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy". When John Adams was elected President, Madison retired to his home in Virginia. He wrote the Virginia Resolutions, protesting against the Alien & Sedition Acts. These four measures, adopted in 1798, were the first overt challenges to such personal liberties as had been established by the constitution. They provided for:

• a naturalization act requiring residence of 14 years before foreigners could become citizens. This seemed to critics to be a clear effort to keep immigrating Irishmen, who tended to vote Republican, away from the polls for about 14 years.

• an alien act allowing the deportation by executive order of any non-citizen that the president found "dangerous to the peace & safety of the United States".

• an alien enemies act, by which subjects of an enemy nation might be deported or imprisoned in wartime. This act was limited to two years, & as Adams never declared a state of war, it expired.

• a sedition act, stipulating criminal prosecution for conspiracy against the government or for interfering with its operations. This law, as entrusted to the federal courts for enforcement, defined nearly any criticism of the federal government or any member of it as a criminal libel. It had a chilling effect on citizens as well as the press.

but the seeds of a "class" society were growing; individualism prevailed over the community, the racial discrimination torn apart its population and the government protected private property over the common good.

Simon Bolivar, South american liberator said to the angostura congress in 1819 "It's impossible to be free and slave at the same time..I leave everything to your sovereign desicion, even the revocation of all my decrees; But I request the confirmation of absolute freedom of slaves, as I would request for my life, and for the life of the republic". His toughts and ideas were very visionary ( "..the United States seems to be destined by the providence to fill the Americas of misery in the name of freedom") and his legacy has yet to be fullfilled.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 10:04 AM

I believe that America is now going into the corrupt stages of the Republic. An Empire may rise. This is where we come in. History never exactly repeats itself. We will destroy the corruption and bring about leftist freedom.
The US has been an empire since at least 1898.

[La Comédie Noire]

The U.S didn't do anything empirish(cough besides kill indians and mexicans and take their land) Until after world war 2. Besides the war in Iraq the most gross example of the empire the united states is becoming was the Vietnam War, you can also go even further to say the Korean war too.

As for Thomas Jefferson being a racist he was'nt, Infact he had an affair with a slave hand and like washington couldnt have given a shit about slavery either way, so it isn't that they where racist it was they where well Assholes.

The two founding fathers I like are Ben Franklin and James Madison for obvious reasons.

But weather the empire is new or old I am still going to fight it.

[bcbm]

The U.S didn't do anything empirish(cough besides kill indians and mexicans and take their land) Until after world war 2. Besides the war in Iraq the most gross example of the empire the united states is becoming was the Vietnam War, you can also go even further to say the Korean war too.

In 1898 The US was just winning the Spanish-American war and acquired its first colonial holdings: Puerto Rico, Guam, the Phillipines and Cuba. It acted as an occupying army and forced in US business interests, among other things. This ignores US policy in Latin America prior to that, which was damn near imperialism if not the actual thing. The US was an empire long before World War II.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

The population of America at the time of the Revolution was divided into thirds. About one-third supported the war, one-third remained loyalist to Britain and the last third didn't care either way.

The idea of sovereignty plagued American perceptions. They felt that while Britain was their mother country, they really wanted nothing to do with the Parliament at all. They had their own state governments and assemblys to deal with their very local and unique situations. They felt that Parliament was usurping their local autonomy by placing taxes upon them, especially since they themselves were not represented.

I think it is safe to judge that those in charge in America did not care at all to be part of the British Parliament system, but instead wished to maintain their own local autonomy.

While the idea of "taxation without representation" has much been touted as such, there were also economic motives behind it. The East India Company was the British monopoly on trade to India (duh) and other places in the east. Americans don't like restrictions on their trade, and a monopoly is just such a restriction (ironic today). Merchants and common people alike found this to be unacceptable.

There was also the fact that the British government did not want to allow settlers past the Appalachain mountains an into the interior (great place to send the poor and release social steam). This would cost money in soldiers when the settlers would tangle with American Indians on the borders (especially in Kentucky). Parliament did not want to fit this bill, and so they instituted taxes on the American subjects as well as in Britain (which were the lowest taxes of any country in the world that collected them).

Finally, there had developed cultural differences between Britain and America. American individualism, calls for representation, fear of government, hatred of taxes, and love of "free" trade all conflicted with the Crown's plans.

TGOW

[Sky]

The American Revolution was prepared for by the entire preceding socioeconomic history of the colonies. The development of capitalism in the colonies and the formation of the North American nation contradicted the policy of the mother country, which considered the colonies a source of raw materials and a market. After the Seven Years’ War, the British government intensified its pressure on the colonies, in many ways hindering the further development of industry and trade. The colonization of lands west of the Appalachian Mountains was prohibited, and new taxes and customs duties were introduced, which were contrary to the interests of all the colonists. Separate, uncoordinated uprisings and disturbances, which later developed into war, began in 1767. There was no unity among the participants in the liberation movement. Farmers, artisans, workers, and the urban petite bourgeoisie, who made up the democratic wing of the liberation movement, linked their struggle against the colonial yoke with hopes for free access to land and political democratization. But the leading position in the camp of the advocates of independence belonged to the representatives of the right wing. They expressed the interests of the upper strata of the bourgeoisie and plantation owners, who were seeking a compromise with the mother country. The opponents of the liberation movement in the colonies and the open supporters of the mother country were Loyalists. Among them were big landowners as well as persons connected with British capital and administration

The American revolution was a bourgeois revolution that led to the overthrow of the colonial yoke and the formation of an independent American national state. The former prohibitions by the British royal authority, which had hampered the development of industry and trade, were abolished. Also eliminated were the large estates of the British aristocracy, as well as vestiges of feudalism (fixed rent, entail, and primogeniture). In the northern states slavery was limited and gradually eliminated. The transformation of the western lands, which had been expropriated from the Indians, into national property by the Ordinance of 1787 and their subsequent distribution created a base for the accumulation of capital. Thus, the essential prerequisites for the development of capitalism in North America were created. However, not all the problems that confronted the revolution were resolved. Slavery was not abolished in the South, and a high property qualification for voters was maintained in all states. The estates of Loyalists and western lands were distributed in large pieces, and they fell into the hands of speculators.

The American revolution, which in its own time was the model of a revolutionary war, exerted an influence on the struggle of the European bourgeoisie against feudal absolutist regimes. The victory of the Americans in promoted the development of the liberation movement of the peoples of Latin America against Spanish domination. During the Great French Revolution the insurgents made use of the organizational experience and revolutionary military tactics of the Americans.

[which doctor]

why on earth was this relic of a thread necroed?

*runs away in embarrassment*