Timothy Birdnow

This is a decent essay, although I quibble with a bit of it. While it is true that there was revolutionary fever all over the West with the Enlightenment following on the heels of the Protestant Reformation (itself a revolution) the United States was a revolution that was essentially conservative in nature; it wanted to preserve the status quo while Britain began a very aggressive effort to reform the way the colonies were managed by the mother country.

Prior to the French and Indian War the British were pretty hands-off the colonies; they ran their own affairs and liked it that way. But the British were quite displeased with the colonial support they received during the war and they decided, since they had to leave troops in the colonies permanently, naturally wanted a firmer hand. The British back home also were angry about having to shoulder the cost of the war, which benefitted the colonials who were exempt from the taxes to pay for it. So Brain moved from a policy of salutary neglect to one where they were more active and where the colonies would be taxed.

Pissed everyone off.

In the process the British made a number of foolish mistakes by not treating the colonials with the same deference they did British born citizens. They suspended some of their rights. They taxed them even though they had no representatives in Parliament. They stationed troops in private domiciles without permission. They cracked down on smugglers who tried to dodge the new taxes.

So America rebelled to restore what she had known before the war with the French.

Also, America had been settled by very religious people who left England so they could be left alone to worship as they pleased. The American revolution may not have been openly religious as the Continental Army was diverse as was Congress, but at the core of it there was a religious fever, as sense that they were the modern version of the Macchabees, or of King David. In many ways it was a REJECTION of the Liberalism that was sweeping Europe at the time.

THAT is why America did not descend into a reign of terror as did France after their revolution. We had a diverse nation which had been wise enough to let everyone run their own affairs. If you lived in Rhode Island you worried about Rhode Island while the folks down yonder in Old Virginnie took care of themselves. And you worshipped your way and let those folks worship in theirs. That was quite different from the French revolution which tried to stamp out religion entirely and forced everyone to follow the revolutionary standard or enjoy your head rolling in a basket - or a fun-filled vacation in the Bastille.

See, they were trying to remake Man. We were trying to restore him. They rejected God and we embraced HIm. World of difference.

This essay also speaks much about "free labor" and says the rise of the Bourgeois class made that possible. Fair enough, but I would argue in America it had little to do with a CLASS so much as with the fact there was so much cheap land to be had that every man could be a squire on his own estate if he were ambitious enough. Most Americans were business owners - farms, blacksmiths, dry goods, etc. Americans were ALL Bourgeois and the laborers were temporary; they all had ambitions of being business owners themselves as soon as they could raise the capital. That is why America needed immigrants then; too much work, too few hands. And it was why slavery was attractive for a time.

And it was the hunger for land that helped precipitate the Revolution. The British put the Ohio territory off-limits to settlement after the French and Indian war, largely to protect the Indians, many of whom had settled there to get away from the increasingly anglo east coast. But the colonists wanted that land because everyone who came here wanted land. There was considerable anger at the crown for not allowing the settlement of the Ohio territory.

This was quite different from the European version of the revolution, in which the more crowded Europeans had to acquire what they wanted by killing those who had it and taking it away. It was quite a bit different (even though Americans did kill Indians, it was often over land that was lying fallow for years, decades even but which the Indians claimed because they occasionally hunted there but never developed.)

At any rate this is an interesting essay. As I say I have some quibbles with it but it's worth reading.

Hide Comments | Add Comment