Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • American Revolution

    Uploaded by

    anuroopmishra10b
    11 views8 pages
    american revolution notes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    american revolution notes

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    11 views8 pages

    American Revolution

    Uploaded by

    anuroopmishra10b
    american revolution notes

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 8
    4 The American Revolution Revolutionary or Nonrevolutionary? THE American Revolution is, perhaps, .# nificant event in this. country’s’ history. Wi yeareae: 1763 to:1783~-Americans declared their independence, waged **? a war of liberation, transformed colonies into states, and cre- ated a new nation, These changes o¢curred.wWith such remark- able rapidity’ that: their speed was truly revolutionary. But scholars disagteé’ about using the ‘term “revolutionary” to de- scribe how new or different thege developments were. Some historians argue that the Revolution was ‘solely a colonial re- bellion aimed at achieving only the limited goal of: independence from Britain, Colonial society, they.say, was a democratic soci- ety and there was a consensus among Americans about keeping things as. they were once the break with Britain had been accom- plished. Others claim that the Revolution was accompanied by a violent social upheaval—a class conflict—as the radical lower classes sought to gain a greater degree of democracy in what had been’a ‘basically undemocratic society in the colonial era. The question is, then, was the Revolution revolutionary, or was it not? American historians for the most part did not probe very deeply jnto the revolutionary nature of the Revolution in the first cefitury after the event. Throughout most of the nineteenth st sig- Scaimeu wiur LamS¢ ° ‘ ‘The American Revolution entury, scholars reflected one of the underlying assumptions of era—that the main theme of American history was the west for liberty. Within this context, the Revolution was inevi- ly viewed in black and white terms as a struggle of liberty versus tyranny between America and Britain eorge Bancroft, one of the outstanding exponents of this oint of view, set forth his thesis in his ten-volume History of United States published between the 1830's and 1670's. To aricroft the Revolution represented one phase of a master plan WB God for the march of all mankind toward a golden age of greater human freedom. America, in his eyes, symbolized the Wrces of liberty and progress; Britain those of tyranny and Teaction. The Revolution was, radical in its character,” accord- to Bancroft, because it Rastened the advance of mankind ward a millennium of “everlasting peace” and “universal WBotherhood.” He went of to add that the Revolution was achieved within the colonies in “benign tranquility” because MP foveicn people were united in ther determination to fight or freedom! With the spirit of nationalism prevalent in nineteenth-century zmerca, itis not too dificult to understand why Bancroft wrote mayne id There was an itege desire song the esc po. le for a national historian who would tell the epie story of the. -volution in patriotic terms, and Bancroft fulilled this longing. fore important, Bancroft intuitively wrote the kind of history at could meet the needs of Americans in yet another way. Throughout much of the period between the 1830's and 1870's, ae country was ality it was divided by the bie pil bat es of the Jacksonian era and the brutal military conflict of the wil War. Bancroft painted a picture of the Revolution as a Free national regi, reminding te Amencang tat they had pwpice fought as a united people for many beliefs they held in ‘Around the turn of the twentieth century, qiffiction set in ‘against Bancroft's ultrapatrotic interpretation. With the grow rapproachement between Britain and Ameri after the sign- 3g of the Treaty of Washington in 1870, thege was a tendency ‘view past relations between the two oguntries in a more favorable light. Developments on the doméstic scene such as * George Bancroft, History of the United Ve pp. 2s Wesley F.Ceven, “The Revolatonaty Ec.” in Joba Higham, ed, The Hreconsiraction of Amerizen History (Sew Yor, 196), pp. 4-47 ter of America (Boston, ‘ie AMERICAN xEvoLUTiON the Populist and Progressive movements i esive movements also affected {Ey look of some scholars, Inenced by these reform mov Which appeared to constitute a popular reset ceheneZPeaed conatte «popular ection agains he con seb Res and path in the hands ofa relatively smal Business leaders in modern industrial Seed America, some historians bean vow he Re gan viewing the evolution in ‘& somewhat similar light as an uprising by the lawer-classes Against the control of the upper dasses Finally the taing lass professional academic Hstorans who eppeced on ta sone about the 1880's also began to explore the Revolution fromv’a different perspective than had Bancroft. The scholars who revised Bancroft’s interpretation between the 1690's and Ide’ fell into two brat sels Gao erees —the imperial school of historians—believed that tical and Seon yee rough on the Heolaon Ti ore ‘economic in nature. While Je these two groupe of historians ‘isagreed with Bancroft on the precise causes ard nature of the Revoltion, they ere often in agreement with his conclusion that the movemeat was, a ‘The imperial school of historians head George L. Beer, Charles M. Andrews, and Lawrence H. Gipson took the poal- tion that the Revaluation was not tbe wewed sally within dhe narrow confines of national history. To be properly understood, Seneca in irae yicteney oa a ‘ered as an integral paztof the history of the British empire as a whole. Hence they directed their attention to the empire, em- Phasiaing in particular the political and constitutional reation- ship between the colonies and the mother country. Since Anglo- American relations were improving around the tum of the twentieth century, these scholars were inclined to be less harsh, on the former mother country than Bancroft bad ba, ter examining the operations of the empire, the imp Iistorians concluded that Britain's colonial policies were not as unjust as Bancroft had declared. Beer wrote four between the years 1893 and 1912 on Britain's commercial pali- Gis inthe seventeenth and eighteenth centre and cine tthe colonists proepared-undera-eysten-thatwas both li eral and enlightened. Andrews, writing a four-volume-work io --EEWT DESERT at vell as burdens in-Beteinés Naga ttion’ Acts because “of the protection provided for America’s aU anships. Cipton, who was a RUA OF Andiewe, took Erreven moze favorable view of imperial policies in his mult- Scanned with CamSc¢ 130 The American Revolution volume work, The British Empire before the American Revolu- on, published between the 1930's and 1960's. The British were justified in taxing the Americans and tightening the Navigation ‘Acts after 1763, claimed Gipson, because it had been Targely British blood and money that was expended in_defendir North American colonies in the "Great War for Empire," 1754~ 1763, ‘All three historians believed that constitutional issues lay at __ the bottom of the dispute between the colonies and mother country, Andrews, for example, argued that the British empire in North America from its beginnings down to the Revolution had been characterized by two movements working at cross _gorposs, The cloies ket moving steady inthe decton of ater_ self-government) the mother_countty_ toward greater ayer the empire. By the eve of the Revolution, the colo- farived at a new concept of empire—colonies as self if caits within an empire held together only by a ce to the king. But the British, clinging to their Fof dependent colonies, considered this idea both erous. “On the one side was the immutable, ‘ystem of the mother country, based on precedent mn and designed to keep things comfortably as they Prwrote Andrews, “on the other, a vital, dynamic organism, taining the seede of a great nation, its forces untried, stil to be proved:”* The dispute, while constitutional in nature, was the very essence of revolution for Andrews; it represented deep-seated conflict between two incompatible societies. “The Progressive historians took quite a different point of view from the imperil school. They were firmly convinced that social and economic issues constituted the main causes of the Revolu~ tion, On the one handy they tended to emphasize the growing economic spit caused by the ahd mother country. On the other, placed great stress upon SEF er etwcen the lower and upper classes In clonal —— uppe “That the Progressive historians saw the Revolution in terms. of an internal class confict was hardly surprising. Many of these scholars were thenseves commited tothe reform move- ments of the eary 1900 and tended to se their own ere in teams of an unending struggle by the people to free themselves Hom dhe shackles of the large corporete monopolies and trusts eases M, Andie, “The American Revelation: An Tterpeaton” Ae Meet Reon SOE Gan 72 re aumucan RevoLwTION mm that constituted the plutocacy, of modem America. Conse ‘quently, they tended to read back into the Revolution the same conflict beween the masses and the upper classes that seemed to be taking place before ther eyes inthe Progressive period from 1900 to 1920. ‘The emergence of Progressive historians such as Carl L. Becker, Charles A. Beard, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr, and J- [Franklin Jameson during this period marked also a sharp shift howard an ecooomic interpretation of history, Such scholars be- jeved that materialistic forees—not ideological factors—were the'majr ditemihants in hrtary. Some of these Rstorians therefore, were economic determiniss who fet that man was motivated mainly by Ris economic selFinterest. They insisted {at any pollcal or constitutional ideas that man might possess ‘would be dictated by economic considerations. To their way of thinking, pocketbook interests, not ideas of patriotism, had mo- tivated the leaders that Bancroft had pictured as heros. ‘Carl L Becker, one of the rst and most effective ofthe Pro- «restive historians, took the postion that the American Revols- ton shuld be consdred-na-a ane cpoluon bt. tw2, The {isst was an external revolution—the colonial rebellion against Britsin—caused by a clash of economic interests between the colonies atid mother country. The second was an internal revo- Tatlon—a confct between Améric’s social casses—to deter- nine whether the upper or lower classes would rule once the ad. In his first major stedy of the Revolution, The History of Political Parties in the Province of New York, 1760- 1776, published in 3 Becker summed up his these of dual fevoltion in x string phrase. New York polis prior to the Revolution, he wrote, revolved, around two questions —the “question of home rule” and the “question... . of who should ‘Chatles A. Beard’s book, An Economic Interoreta- fon of the Cone seshteh wes fused i 1913, not tly with the Revolution, Kt became a landmark for Strole wring about this era of American history, After an Sfaminaton of the economic holdings of the framers of the Conan, Beard advanced Ni ov-famous ypotest that fhe events leading to the convention of 1787 mirrored a spit th cree eg Oe cr peoren he Ak So fiom and-mecshants, debtors and creditors, and holders of “Carl L Becher, The History of Pelital Paris inthe Province of New York 1140-1776 (Madison, 1989), 2 Scanned with CamSc¢ The American Revolution | wealth and paper wealth. More than any other single work pien in the Populist Progressive era, Beard’s book caused gressive historians to view the period between the 1760's the 1780's as one of continuous conflict between social asses in America over economic matters. conclusion that the Revolution might be seen in terms of a class struggle over economic issues was further spelled out Parthur M. Schlesinger’s work The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, published in 1918. Schlesinger studied ‘merchant class in all the colonies during the period 1763- 1776 and noted that this usually conservative group played « Bling role in bringing on the Revolution. Why had they done so? Disenchantment of the merchants with British rule, said lesinger, arose-from-the economic reverses they sulfered as 4 result of the stiict policy of imperial control enacted by the her country after the French and Indian War. But resistance By the merchants against the mother country grew less intense + 1770, he noted, for fear of what might happen to. their jon and property if the more radical lower classes—“their n@@iscal enemies in society’ —should gain the upper hand: ‘Schlesinger’s book dealt mainly with the period prior-to 1776, ‘the author went on to comment about the increasing dread, OF class confict once independence was declared. The merchant’ oP; 1 and many men refused to prtipate ethusataly the struggle against the British lest the lower clasges seize mGPic0] and rule at home. Biding their time during thé troubled ‘years of the Confederation period, the merchants drew together in the late 1760's to found a new government that would "Breguard thts cass interests, Once united, the merchant ass pame, in Schlesinger’s words, ‘a potent factor in the con- rvative counterrevolution that led to the establishment of ed States Constftation,”* er, the Consttuilon ‘was the antithesis of the Revolution; the same classes and men }0 were pitted against one another in the 1770's continued to Contend for control of the government in the 1780's, Franklin Jameson, another historian waiting’ within the Pe cssive tation, Ueewise viewed the Revolution a class mB iict—s social movernent by the lower classes to achieve a greater degree of democracy within American society, His book, ye American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement, Fublished in 1926, described the sweeping social and economic MW Arthur Ni Schlesinger, The Colonial Merchants and the American et MsStie Me ork Soni. 6 <= ao 333 fsfoms that took place during the wat; reforms th ithe power of the prewar aristocracy and improved the lot of conn ran Eine mows an Jer a ‘eres of he redtsoton sf anid eso ae ae Int estates were confiscated and broken ip eto ts Fes soe wo small farners; vast domains controlled By the Crown ant Proprietors passed into the hands of state legislatures, which threw open tes ane fot setdeneea wees which an end fo the old aristocratic practices of primogeniture: snd fall Social democre eae lar strides as property quali iéations for vot ice} were lowered, sla id ‘he save Cale te shale nee UES Sey church was dieestabished in many pare of de soni te son’s book summed up the point of view of the Progressive tonne who eerie tucks net Se eS interpretation of the Revolution during the first part of the Event century, To ip day tc ese Pao he Roveition ts mllotaned {9 Meenas Peas ed scholar athe University of Wisconsin, and numerous eer Historians, = = i Since World War I, however, a new group of scholars— the neo-conserVative school of historne—emerged to challenge n set ¢ Progitisive historians. The the in fundamental dlaagreement between thee two groups delved from the different way that each viewed the colonal period a5 a whole: To the Progeaeie Hata eee ae ee lon era was undemocratic, giving rise to class conflcts throughout the enize period. ‘The lover classes being” poor, underprivileged, and ‘deprived of the right to vote, kept up @ ‘constant clase struggle fo improve tha lot in society In the eyes of these historians, then, the Revelation represented the Climax of « movement by the masses fo advance ther economic well-being and to wrest greater political rights from the upper ‘The neo-conservative historians, on the other hand, believed eat fo that American cazentially &-democr ‘in the edna pede Mae colons, ater tan bug poo hese scholars claimed, could as members of the middle class iy vee of the popes tes Seaed Pll democray Wes the order of the day because the majority of colonists were ‘small farmers who possessed enough land to meet the necessary qualifications for voting. Colonial society was an open, not a losed society, and characterized by a High Weyree of soe Scanned with CamSc¢ 4 The American Revolution robilty. Thus, the common man in the colonial era was sats- fied with his Tot in society and felt no urge to participate in class conflict in order to achieve a greater degree of democracy. ‘As a corollary to this second point of view, neo-conservative scholars argued that the Revolution vas basically « conserva~ tive movement. Americans fought the Revelation, according to these historians, in order to preserve a social order that was ady democratic in colonial days. When Bitsh reforms affer 476s threatened fo upset the esting democratic socal order in America, the colonists rose up in rebellion. In the struggle Between ihe loi nd mother county, the “Amereans emerged as the “conservatives” because they we Keep matters as they were before 1763. Te was the Bat swerethe“Taaiets™ Because they Rept insisting upon making ehanges and innovations inthe colonial system after the French snd indian War. Scholats of the neo-conservative school rejected the ides of clas struggle and stressed instead the concept of a general con- senaus among the American people in the Revolutionary War era, Most Americans held certain ideas in common they argued, and these views united the colonists to the degree which made {tpossble for them to actin concert against Great Britain. One important element in this American consensus was the wide- ~ spread belief among all social classes that the Ubertes of the people were based upon certain fundamental principles of self- fovernment which could not be changed without thelr consent. {Ud by such scholars as Robert E. Brown and Daniel J. Boorstin, the neo-conservative school saw consensus and continuity rather than class conflict and disunity asthe main themes in this period of American history. Robert E.Brovin in Midadle-Class Democracy and the Revoli- tion in Massachusetts, set out specifically to challenge the thesis af the Progresiv school of historians that the Revolution was, in part a clase confit over the question of who should rule at hme. ‘One of the starting assumptions of the Progressive scholars, Brown noted, was that the structure of American ciety in the colonial period was undemocratic because prop” fers ualifcations for suffrage prevented many persons in the Tower lasses from voting. After fociety in prewar Massachueits, Brown coneided that the vast insjoity of adult males in that colony were farmers whose eal (estate holdings were suficient to meet the necessary propesty Bualifations” for voting. Middle-class democracy tat Mase studying the structure of | \ 4 {HE ANCERICANE REVOLUTION us chusetts before the war was an established fact, Brown main- ‘ tained, and the purpose of the Revolution was to preserve the existing democratic social order on the local level—not to range in’ similar vein, Daniel J. Boorstin argued that the Revolu | tion was a conservative movement on the imperial as well as \ ihe Toca Tevel because Americans were Sighting fo etan trade tional rights and liberties granted to them under the British | baled against Great Britain to Guo, Boortn iaeated tn The Genus of ov Pots, not to intate a ne order. When the British {nttduced changes in te government of the empire efter the French and Indian War, the Americans kept resisting these dis- | turbing innovations on the grounds that they were contrary to the Brush constitation. In reusing to accept the principle of ‘ro taxation without representation, Berstin wrote, the patins -Hiere insisting upon an old liberty and nat a new tight “The leaders ofthe Revolution in Boor’ views were reuc- tant rebels American patriots thought of themselves as English men who were more tie tothe tenets ofthe Bellshconstitation than the Brlteh themselves. Resistance to imperial sthorty bbegan when the Americans felt that they were being denied (Rp rights as Englihimen by_a_ miss arliament. After ‘Wking the drastic step. of deddring their ndence with Cored rca Anetta Mites en ek the Beh Ree eed een neg ee rile ty ae nl ele eee es Se had_prized so highly—trial by jury, due process of law, the da ea tal Jy ng oc ee, the free speech, free petition, and free assembly. Thus, in Boorstin’s sah rere, een, hs osain regarded as an act of faith in favor of the British constitution. Bitpinde nee Scena ale ba ete ioe her herita na eh aay nee tae onan eens rs Revolution that arose after 1945 seemed to mirror the conserva- Hehe ae el er mth conser oo Wd ea eee paced tate ater he Sie moun eee em a Cold Uned Sal ttn athe accor yee ahh slat of Ctr cia oa #4 ee seatagly ecco we te one heat can icone ce rte, Probl of ana uy ethaps in a subconscious Scanned with CamSc¢ The Americen Revolution Cael by playing down the differences between the American ) ) ple in the past in order to present an image of a nation that strong and united throughout most of its history. Thus, the jure of the Revolution a8 a period of disorder and disunity @ way to one which emphasized a consensus among the PAB csican people and stressed the continuity between our colo- I past and our beginnings as a nation. )Whevelopments on the domestic scene during the 1940's and 0's likewise caused historians to recast the Revolution along conservative lines. Economic prosperity in the post-World 1 Tl period and the concomitant rise in affluence in American yWrery coupled with an increase in social legislation aimed at oving the living conditions among. lower-income gfoups ed to blur the lines of rigid class distinctions within the suntry, Living in an era in which class distinctions presumably red a less important role, neo-conservative historians. were ~ Teg: prone to se te element of class confit inthe Revolotion sort the RE-CoRSERVAGVE school of hetorias seemed fo be ecting some of the dominant ideas of thet own tne i teat SIP he Revolution as they did ‘Although neo-conservative scholars continued to publish dur- the 1960', they found ther position under attack from eteral quarters, One challenge came fromm the wltings of ce po. isvellectual Historians who viewed the Revolution as 2 fadical movement. Another came from seweral “New Left” foviane who interpreted the Amecican pastas a whole and the Revolution in particular from a radical point of view. e trend toward greater emphasis upon intellectual history | resulted in part as a reaction against the Progressive scholars Jo had generally shown a profound distrust of ideas as the Mermining, forces in ‘history: Strongly influenced By the Eo he Flomesave htorans boked ed self-inferests that motivated human behavior. They in- ied that the upper-elasses-in- colonial America Rad manlp- ed_ideas “solely to suit the interests of their class. When embers of the merchant class “slogan sucha "No tion Without representation,” their goal was basically. fo fr up support among the lower classes; they were not genu- y-corcerned about abstract principle. Colonial merchants ned the Stamp Act into an issue of constitutionalism and ara rights argued Progressive historians, as a propagand interests sii: ‘ideas_as mere rationalizations designed to mask the deep- a se in order to conceal their true cla i 9 Korbes sarvownio. ree = ance ts view ofthe rol LY history, urtent generation of scholars have emphanted ie Of ideas in’ bringing on the Revolution, Some, schules who viewed the Revelation fom the standpoint of inact! Mi tory came to the conclusion that connate Sees a ile an thatthe movement was conve es Othe orient, however, came to enaly the apposite sonlaige, agbrtsed Bal vas the fremont scholars view te Revel ton a «cael movenent fom te vawpont of tele story. In his work, The Ideological Orighs ofthe sroieat Keclton, be Tok the onion tat sey hnaeiver co fttued the malor-detrminanty in history? After sly the pamphlet tertare wnten inthe pid fot poor ston, Balyn eonclded Gt des as eed ln bringing about the break with Batam: Best he sae et Ge gh ope ie eee nature. The ideas taken up, in other words, not only revealed the position taken by the Colonists but also gave the reasons Biya 2 wand had been adopted, Second, the ideas them- spe ac 8 denis dy Ge peed by cas hanger inthe eles, attuden, end aegis ae spears ae fm argued that an abort, theory of poli ley a the heart of the American revolutionary Welogy—an ieolog woe soos could be traced back ote ant-aortavtan tok tion in England. Ths theory was based upon an ander Mew of Inna ater sod Toon he fos Sans of Jian bd a natal for pees hey bean owe | by its very nature was's corrupting force and could be attained only by depriving others of their liberty. To protect liberty against the corrupting force of power, all cements of the body politic had to be balanced off against one-another in order to [Prevent one from gaining dominance over the others. The best solution, of course, was a balanced constitution; but the malig- ‘nant influence of power was such that no system of government, | whatsoever could be safe or stable for very long. Sipws hes as tha chr theary of pote shaped the ‘course of America’s revolutionary thought from the 1730's through the constitutional theory criss of the 1760's and 1770's, Viewed within the context of this theory, the arguments ex- Meret ANS pugblts coud be interpreted i's diferent unnd Baler The Mtge Oni of te Amen Retin contigs Scanned with CamSc¢ a8 “The American Revolution light, The colonists, seemed. nee convinced that thee eas iste le rut sey in beth England anda England it was the King’s. yan. a rete conspting ins Heer They wsuped the prerogatives of the Cro Systematically encrosched upon the independence of the Com- oe” and Pat te ble ofthe Bash cnstiuton Intel oeept dv ae awe Arere te King mints wet saab in thes Cnupeatoa digs by fol fica ho Hee sine destoying the leer ofthe eovtuton and seizing as much power and authority as possible. From the Kenian pont of we, then, the Bich regurs after 1763 there nothing fess han’ widespeedplt to feb all Egichinen Fhe hints a home ap abroad Belting thatthe ore Spiacy had succeded in England the colonists eae fo ee tee Roe sepresente te int bastion forthe defege of ‘English Tiberties and the freedom of all mankind. These ideas and this interpretation of British behavior, Bailyn believed, ally fed the exlonists in deeperation to teow 10° armed Pelion Tay thus took issu with the Progressive histor who dele that the petit lenders were ndlging in mee eorc and propaganda when they employed such words as “con- png Neerland nen Bl’ coi the colonists meant what they sé at WE Fear oF conspiracy Spuinet-constitated-authenity ves built into the very structure rand a hn wey ened Se xy ea rote, {and] sense of ed dangere’* These asnamplons, less and attodes had fashioned the world vew of he ‘inercan Wage and ceased hem wo sentereet Batok ebay sole meee ey aes To Bailyn the Revolution represented, above all, an ideolog- se fevliion=a adel change nthe way that most Ame looked upon themselves and their institutions. The true -evelton he ruggsted, tock place fm men’s minds move than in the political or social sphere. This “intellectual” revolution consttated a complete transformation in the image thatthe colonists tat-of themselves, Before-the-Revotattor the Amer- ican sv ther vergence from the Horm of European ose fs shercomings: they felt «sense ef infec beowae they incked 2 tiled aslocrty, copmopaitaneufare asanel soit, and tablished che slong naan nee Afee tee "hid pb re Bamps evermore yf we Revolution, on the other hand, they came to look upon these differences as good, not bad, as virtues, not vices, and as adv tages rather than defects, This change in perspective, i Ballyn’s eves, was the American Revolution, and a section of his book is included asthe second selection inthe chapter, ‘The second trend in the 1960s which contradicted the neo cotservative view of the Revolution was the veitings of the New Left” historians. Although the “New Left” position had wot Been worked out in its entirety, it was clear that these ‘scholars regarded the Revolution as & radical movement. One ‘New Left scholar—Jesve Lemisch—suggested that the Revo- Jution could be shown to be more radical and characterized by sreat clas conflict if historians would take the trosble to ex tine the event from the point of view of the common man. Lemisch declared that his flow scholara were gullly of writ: ng Mato, frm the tandenint of he elie in Amecican society fron the viewpoint of the men atthe top such as Washing on, Jefferson, and Adams, History should be viewed "from the bottom up.” Lemisch wrote, from the vantage point of the verage ahha sowed the inact [and] the = Lemisch charged that scholars often were insensitive to issues witch ae et aoe ee te make his point, Lemisch singled out the omission of any dis cet Ries ates eg Lowly ran seamen were deeply disturbed by the Royal Non peti Seat ea RT | igre eae ena Sete 2 etl lt SP ewe reece Ia oe eee oe Fo Oe ee new evidence would come to light and the history of the Revo- 4 lution would be rewritten along different lines. An article by Lemisch is included as the third selection in this chapter. f peer pore iee te en perme eee Ma on ot ba ee Eine owner cage tate aes ual race teem mec taney he pofedon, "New care we nme poe dein we the ee ae Penny er the Sele ana set cae by * Jase Lemitch, “Th ylation Seen from the Bottom, Up.” in Towards» New Fast Bosaning Bye i ma th American Histor Barton J. Bernstein (New York, 1968), p29, audarlt Scanned with CamSc¢ > 40 The American Revolution the Vietnam conflict; and the atmosphere of reform prevalent Bn many college campuses. Those intellectual historians who saw the Revolution as a radical movement, on the other hand, Bepresented in part a reaction to and revision of the neo-con- servative approach, 2 In summary, historians who have addressed themselves to ‘the question of whether the Revolution was revolutionary or Bot must answer a number of related questions. Was American society democratic during the colonial period so that the Revo- Dution became nothing more than a colonial rebellion? Or was American society undemocratic in the colonial era, thus result- Ds a dual revolution: .a struggle to see who would rule at home as well_as_a fight for home rule? Were the reforms that @

    You might also like