الثلاثاء، 5 يوليو 2016

?How 'radical' was the American Revolution

                                            


          First of all, we have to agree on the meaning of the terms that we are going to use. I am using the term 'radical' in the meaning that is assigned to it by Merriam-Webster which is "favoring extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions." Thus, the proper opposite of it would be the term 'conservative,' that is, to conserve the "existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions." Secondly, though it is arguable, I am going to the use traditional timeline of the revolution that marks its beginning at 1765 and marks its end at 1783. To answer the question whether the American Revolution was intended to make a radical change in the political institution or not, we have to agree on criteria upon which we classify a revolution. I am going to use these three criteria to decide whether any revolution is a radical or a conservative-a revolution is radical when It changes the existing structure of the state( i.e. from kingdom to republic), it causes a radical change in the socio-economic system such as ending slavery or feudalism, and it changes the rulings elite. Some scholars might disagree with these criteria, and have their own criteria, but in this case it is not a historical dispute, it is merely semantic dispute. In addition, these questions are simple concrete yes-or-no questions, so they are not down to the personal opinion of the scholar. The American Revolution was not radical because it did not meet these requirements or even any of them. 


  The American Revolution ended the monarchical rule of Great Britain over the colonies and established the American republic, but still, it did not change the structure of the already existing state for multiple reasons. First, the colonies were already more or less far away from the direct rule of the British crown. In fact, the revolution was sparked because Britain wanted to change the status quo after the Revolutionary War. The Revolutionary War costed Britain many losses, and it was meant to protect the American colonies, so the British decided that it is common sense for them to increase their influence and control over the colonies including imposing taxes. Hence, the American Revolution was meant to conserve the existing confederations of the colonies and restore the status quo that was there before the war. The words 'conserve' and 'restore' are far from the word ‘radical’. Second, the Revolution was not meant to overthrow the rule of the crown at its very beginning. The revolution started because of a relatively small dispute over the taxes that were imposed by Britain over the colonies, but it evolved over the following years. If the revolution was meant to change the structure of the state from monarchy to republic, we would have found evidence in the literature of these years supporting that, but we found the opposite of that. In 1765, the Stamp Act was issued by the British Parliament over the colonies, requiring them to have all their papers stamped in Britain. It was meant to have extra taxes, but the colonies refused it and sent the Declaration of Rights and Grievances to the British king, Louis III. In the declaration, the colonists appealed to their rights as Englishmen reminding the king that their ancestors who immigrated to the colonies were Englishmen with full rights.” That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural-born subjects, within the realm of England" (Shi, and Mayer 119). Therefore the American Revolution did not start to overthrow the kingdom and establish a republic, but actually to assure that the colonies are part of the kingdom. However, that did not continue the next years when the colonists discovered that the separation was inescapable.

          What I mean by a "radical change in the socioeconomic system" is a sudden change in the ladder of classes that is caused by revolution. Such radical change occurs only because of a conscious decision of the revolutionaries, unlike the normal social mobility that happens spontaneously and slowly. Some scholars use the phrase-"all men are created equal," to support their argument that the American Revolution was radical. It is true that this line was used later during the debate about abolishing slavery, but if the American Revolution was intended for social reformations, these reformations would have taken place directly after the revolution. The United States Constitution implicitly made slavery legal, in Article 1 Section 2, it states-“Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned Among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons" (U.S. Constitution. Art. I, Sec. 2). Only in 1865, this clause has been amended and slavery was abolished.  

  The third criteria, that is required for a revolution to be called radical, is changing the ruling elites. Changing the ruling elites is a natural conclusion of many revolutions because these elites are responsible for the conditions that led to the revolution in the first place. But in the case of the American Revolution, the situation is quiet different. As mentioned before, the American Revolution started as a small-scale protest against the lack of representation then became a separatist movement. In separatist movements, the separatists usually stand behind their ruling elites because they want to represent themselves as a unified people in front of the country they want to be separate from. 


  In conclusion, historians have been debating about whether the American Revolution was radical or conservative, but this debate is actually semantic dispute. In order to get the things straight, we have to define our terms precisely. The criteria method I used above is the way historians are supposed to deal with such debates. Science, Social science included, is simply a scientist applying a method to a research area, so the result is supposed to be the same regardless of whom has done the research.