Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

american Revolution... FACT or FALSE?

rated by 0 users
This post has 12 Replies | 3 Followers

Not Ranked
Posts 2
Points 100
Coprophage Posted: Thu, Jul 9 2009 1:26 PM

American revolution was one of the most revolutionary revolution in history. This was caused by the socio conflict between great Britain and colonials, inefficient government and economic issues.

In the lates 18th century, the new social class called bourgeoisie appeared in the society of America. They are usually merchants, who were well educated, wealthy and in middle class. American Revolution gave a large impact on these people. There were two different groups existed in America. One was Olive Branch Petition that was royal to great britain and seek for a new relationship with Great Britain. The other one was radicals, who set independence of America was the goal. Most of radicals were bourgeoisie who were eduucated and understood the soncept of enlightenment.

The most important factor to talk about American Revolution is economy. In 17, Great Britain made the taxation system called Sugar Act and Stamp Act. Both were made for the benefits of British government. Sugar Act was used when America imported goods, such as, sugar, liquor, and other things. It was fairly acceptable for society. Stamp Act was the first domestic taxation in history. After this taxation was made, people had to pay taxes for things that carries information and entertainment, such as, newspapers, stamps for sending letters and even playing cards.

Great Britain was feared of decline of economy, they tried to force the trade open.

American Revolution was very revolutionary because it followed enlightenment, which was the new concept made by John Locke in 1600s. His theory of enlightenment stated that, "power to rule comes from consent of governed.'' This means, all people should have equal of life, liberty and property and government have the right to protect there rights. If they failed, people have right to overthrow old government and replace it with the new one. This concept has been written more than hundred years before occurrence of American Revolution. Although, in "Declaration of Independence", almost exactly the same statement can be found.

This most revolutionary revolution became the origin of other famous revolutions, such as, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution and Latin American Revolution. Those revolutions were mostly copied from American Revolution.

American Revolution was revolutionary for certain people in America. After the revolution, America became democratic country but it affected only small number of people who were well educated, such as, bourgeoisie class. Some people got the right to vote but still women and non-whites were not allowed. When those were eliminated, few percentage of the population got the true meaning of freedom.

Before the American Revolution, people had very fearful idea on revolution, such as anger, violence and even killing. Those images came from previous revolutionary, such as, Robespierre, Lenin and Mao Zedong. In the other hand, George Washington, Thomas Tefferson, and John Adams were very different from those other revolutionary. They were considered as too intelligent, too cautious, and too gentle to be the revolutionary.

People, also, believed revolutions are the results of "poverty and economist deprivation." American Revolution, however, did not follow those rules. Colonial Americans were living in the fairly comfortable life than even people in Great Britain. Many historians thought "taxation without representation'' was the main cause of the American Revoultion but it turned out to be not the main cause.

Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095

Um, yes, it is true that there was a war of independence fought to not be under British rule.  It is not fiction.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

Coprophage:
American revolution was one of the most revolutionary revolution in history.

 

I would say it is one of the least revolutionary revolutions, because it did little to alter the social order. All that it achieved in doing was severing ties with the old world, the same class of people still controlled the colonies as they had before the revolution. Indeed it did little to alter society as it stood. This differs from the other revolutions you mentioned such as the French revolution, which saw the active overthrow of the aristocracy by the bourgeoisie. In Saint Domingue (Haiti) the slaves replaced their white owners as the power. On the subject of slavery in the post-revolutionary colonies the slaves still remained in bondage. This differs from the French who abolished slavery in the immidiate aftermath of the revoution.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

you seem to have an overly materialistic view of the world.

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

Not really, at least in the marxian sense, a revolution is inherently about change and the American revolution didn't see as much social change as other revolutions of its period.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

im not interested in having conversations revolving around marxian terminology.

Lord Shore-Twilly:
, a revolution is inherently about change and the American revolution didn't see as much social change as other revolutions of its period.

me buying an apple is inherently  about me spending some money in order to get hold of an apple. yet as the apple i got yesterday was quite smaller than the last few apples i got on previous days, i did not last buy an apple yesterday but rather only two days ago, i have discovered this truth through my superior analysis.

 

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

I think that the action of the revolution was ground breaking however the after effects of the revolution weren't so awe inspiring. Perhaps I am engaging in hindsight but then again perhaps I am not because I think Thomas Paine would implicily agree with what I am about to state. To break the chains of bondage of British rule was revolutionary. To then clasp the citizens in the chains of a new government that wasn't even brought about by even a majority consent is dubious. Who voted for this continenial congress? Who gave these men their titles? Did they not just take it upon themselves in constructing an institution which dictated legislation to baffled individuals. I don't make it a habit to support Loyalists but Samuel Seabury was right when he said:

'Will you submit to this slavish regulation? – You must. – Our sovereign Lords and Masters, the High and Mighty Delegates, in Grand Continental Congress assembled, have ordered and directed it. They have directed the Committees in the respective colonies .... to inspect the conduct of the inhabitants, and see whether they violate the association. Among other things, whether they drink any tea or wine in their families, after the first of March; or wear any British or Irish manufactures; or use any English molasses, etc. imported after the first day of December next. If they do, their names are to be published in the Gazette, that they may be publickly known, and universally contemned, as foes to the rights of British America, and enemies of American liberty. – And then the parties of the said association will respectively break off all dealings with him or her. – In plain English, – They shall be considered as Out-laws, unworthy of the protection of civil society, and delivered over to the vengeance of a lawless, outrageous mob, to be tarred, feathered, hanged, drawn, quartered, and burnt. – O rare American Freedom! ...
Will you be instrumental in bringing the most abject slavery on yourselves? Will you choose such Committees? Will you submit to them, should they be chosen by the weak, foolish, turbulent part of the country people? – Do as you please: but, by HIM that made me, I will not. – No, if I must be enslaved, let it be by a KING at least, and not by a parcel of upstart lawless Committee-men. If I must be devoured, let me be devoured by the jaws of a lion, and not gnawed to death by rats and vermin. ...'

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,959
Points 55,095
Spideynw replied on Sat, Jul 11 2009 2:47 PM

If the "founding fathers" were really interested in a limited government, they would have given all legislators full veto power, not just the President.  They also would not have given the federal government the power to have a post office or to coin money.

However, we have learned a lot since then that they did not know about.

At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,511
Points 31,955

Lord Shore-Twilly:
I would say it is one of the least revolutionary revolutions, because it did little to alter the social order. All that it achieved in doing was severing ties with the old world, the same class of people still controlled the colonies as they had before the revolution. Indeed it did little to alter society as it stood. This differs from the other revolutions you mentioned such as the French revolution, which saw the active overthrow of the aristocracy by the bourgeoisie. In Saint Domingue (Haiti) the slaves replaced their white owners as the power. On the subject of slavery in the post-revolutionary colonies the slaves still remained in bondage. This differs from the French who abolished slavery in the immidiate aftermath of the revoution.

I second this, and note that its best to call the entire affair the American War of Independence because a) it was not a revolution in the technical. historical sense of the word, and b) it was hardly revolutionary in the adjectivial sense of the word.

Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.

          - Edmund Burke

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Male
Posts 244
Points 5,455
Felipe replied on Sat, Jul 11 2009 3:29 PM

Lord Shore-Twilly:
I would say it is one of the least revolutionary revolutions, because it did little to alter the social order. All that it achieved in doing was severing ties with the old world, the same class of people still controlled the colonies as they had before the revolution.

The "same class of people"...... under what context you make that affirmation?

I believe that the overthrow of british mercantilism and the aristocratic social order in the colonies in favor of a capitalist society with a free market and strong meritocratic principles was probably the most inspiring revolution in the world.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 84
Points 1,860

Felipe:
The "same class of people"...... under what context you make that affirmation?

The context of 18th century colonial social stratification.

Felipe:
I believe that the overthrow of british mercantilism and the aristocratic social order in the colonies in favor of a capitalist society with a free market and strong meritocratic principles was probably the most inspiring revolution in the world.

 

But that didn't occur, as I explained in my post. The USA continued the mercantile policies it had as a colony, and the British aristocracy didn't control the colonies before the revolution.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 6:35 AM

I recommend highly The radicalism of the amercian revolution, FEE audio lecture by Jeff Hummel.

Too bad it was undone be the Constitution.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Wed, Jul 22 2009 6:46 AM

laminustacitus:
I second this, and note that its best to call the entire affair the American War of Independence because a) it was not a revolution in the technical. historical sense of the word, and b) it was hardly revolutionary in the adjectivial sense of the word.

I fully agree. Revolution is a total misnomer. It was a secessionist war of independence.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (13 items) | RSS