This video was not patriotic enough. Must demand the national anthem played next time along with three jumping jacks, two pushups, and one squat while proclaiming your love for our savior, God Emperor Trump.
Heads are exploding under MAGA hats all over the country. You should have mentioned that the taxes levied against the colonies were to help pay the crown back for the expense of the Seven Years War, That was started by the colonists. Great work professor A+.
Actually even as late as 1776 independence was rarely discussed,the Colonists used to call it "The War Against Britain,"the Loyalists in the colonists went to Canada after the war, they were actually rich White men who didn't want to pay taxes and even as early as 1814 the New England States were close to secede from the Union because of the fishing trade. The reality was that the American people really saw their states as their "country" than the US as a whole until after the US Civil War.
From U.K. There is an aspect of all this that continues to be overlooked. The Patriot movement actually started in the British Parliament as a branch of the Whig Party. They were opposed by the Tory Party. It was this conflict that spread to the colonies. It was triggered here by another revolution - The Industrial Revolution. The system of voting for members of Parliament had not changed since the Middle Ages. But Industry was pulling people out of the countryside and into towns. Manchester for example was once a small village, but had grown into the country’s second largest city, but had no representation in Parliament. Britain was long overdue either for reform or revolution. My home town of Rotherham was Patriot. Still dominating the town from a hill top is a monument to the Boston Tea Party. It was paid for by our local politician the Earl of Effingham. He is remembered today in the US by having counties and towns named for him. Georgia has six counties named for British politicians who supported the colonists. And then five more named for British army officers who fought on the American side. We often hear of American Tories who stayed loyal, but the Brits who supported and fought for America are now almost forgotten. Folowing the British defeat at Yorktown, another local Whig Rockingham was invited to become Prime Minister, as Tory hawks were planning to send more troops. Rockingham agreed on two conditions - That he be allowed to set America Free and then introduce economic reform at home. Step by step Englishmen were to regain their ancient liberties following the American example.
Your investigative history (and academic approach) is always refreshing and thought-provoking. Especially when asked how _revolutionary_ the American Revolution was. It sure has influenced a long list of other independence movements, revolutions and how rights are defined. Great video, I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Lol Ho Chi Minh's Communists cited the famous words as did every Latin American independence movement. But how many actually lived up to their pledge? The Constitution of China promised all these rights and more. But it's just pretty words for authoritarian regimes to commit atrocities and mass killings. From 1945-1946, the Vietnamese Communists killed tens of thousands of nationalists who they believed threatened their monopoly to power.
3:43 Many of the Founders migrated back to Britain. That was jaw-dropping, to say the least. I love how you began with some good old fashioned mythology. I was about ready for you to say that the United States was founded as a Christian Nation™.
The most ironic of those who moved back was Thomas Paine. Like the guy who brought on anti-monarchism and arguably the declaration itself went back Britain in 1787, just in time to get embroiled in the French Revolution. T-Pain was the most fascinating of all the founders, but the person who funded his passage to America was way cooler (Ben Franklin)
@@CynicalHistorian Another cool thing about him is that Thomas Paine was meant to be executed on July 28th i believe but the French goverment was overthrown they day before saving him
This is amazing I’ve never seen someone site a secondary source to prove their point, only to get proven wrong by the literal primary source they’re talking about.
Thomas Paine was my favorite founding father because he actually had pretty revolutionary ideas, from his concept of a right to revolution that helped to kick the whole thing off. to his book Agricultural Justice, which was basically Georgism but 100 years early, and he was highly skeptical of religion.
@@AbbeyRoadkill1 Well because Common Sense was basically just a precursor to shock-value and/or some type of bait, all it did was say that Anyone that supported the Monarchy was feminine (a very very deep insult for the time) Cowardly (Even worse then calling someone a woman) and basically didn't have any intelligence to the point of near subhuman degree.
Thank you for making this video, because you put into words (with pretty pictures) my thoughts that I could never explain myself. The American Revolution didnt behead any kings, redistribute the wealth, or make everyone actually politically equal, but it did provide an actual attempt to create an "Enlightenment state" rather than a Westphalian one.
Thanks for another great and thought-provoking video. You have taken me back to my grad school days, specifically my Historiography class. We talked about the what you are presenting here. We debated the "Conservative Revolution" issue. There was one thing that is not usually addressed in depth. Revolutionary vs Tory sentiment was not evenly spread throughout the colonies. The people of Massachusetts had been restive for years, the attempt to merge the whole North East into the Dominion of New England to weaken local government and strengthen the Crown was resisted, in the end they arrested Gov. Andros and sent him packing. Massachusetts, and New England in general, already had local self-government and resented Crown attempts to infringe on their customary governance. The "Intolerable Acts" sought to abolish the MA Provincial Parliament and the Town Meetings. This resulted in the legislature meeting outside Boston and usurping British government everywhere there were no Red Coat feet on the ground. In 1774 this Massachusetts Provincial Congress basically was as much a revolutionary regime as the later French one as it set up a government in defiance of the King and his regime. There was no official Declaration of Massachusetts Independence, the town meetings continued and sent elected delegates to the provincial legislature as before, in practice ignoring the Crown and the British government as if it didn't exist. The Battle and forced retreat under fire of British forces from Lexington and Concord wasn't as bloody as the French Revolution [big deal] but was violent enough and showed that New England was seriously, i.e. majority, anti-monarchist [unlike New York and Philadelphia]. Revolutionary units from other parts of Yankeedom, Vermont, New Hampshire and Connecticut came in support. That this support spread to other colonies is beside the point, the Yankees had revolted and overthrown the royal government by political and armed means. Keep up the much needed good work.
Many people confunds "revolution" with revolts, war and violence. They forget how arguments, ideas and word are as much as importan as the strenght to defend that revolution.
Seems kind of intuitive thought, if you think about how "natural law" was including the claim that kings and queens had GOD GIVEN rights to rule over their subjects and around that time many subjects started to deeply object to that notion... the Swiss and Dutch Republics were already a thing (well the Dutch skating along between true Republic and constitutional monarchy at least) England was about 140 years past their own civil war that had included a phase of non-monarchy and soon after the American Revolution the French also started theirs, sweeping throughout Europe and giving many population groups their first taste of "not being ruled by the nobility" and South America got rid of the Spaniards with a kind of shaky mix of republican systems and monarchies taking over. Somewhere in between Haiti broke off from Napoleonic France to try and go their own separate way... In a lot of ways the US were the sliver ripped out of the dam, that brought the thing to break, but they were not completely the origin of the idea that maybe god given rights were not the ideal state of things. Especially under kings that SUCKED. Still it would be quite some time until there were more republican nations around than Monarchies and WW I was a big step forward in that regard...
Although I'm not saying that natural law wasn't invoked for the sake of the nobility, Jeferson took his use directly from Locke who was presenting a politically liberal view.
Seems to me that the term "conservative revolution" could make sense if you interpret the American Revolution as sort of a reactionary phenomenon, triggered by Britain's attempt to change the de facto arrangement of benign neglect that had already existed.
@@mirzaahmed6589 American Thought said that Britain up before a certain point in time didn't care much for the colonies or their actions, this is of course incorrect, as Britain just allowed the colony (like other European nations of the time) to Wage War against native peoples and other colonial holdings of separate nations. Britain didn't just get their nose into Political affairs even though they did pretty much everything else. Hence why the whiny and bratty American Aristocrats decided to up and murder taxmen because they where taxed a few pence more than usual so that the War that just happen to mostly defend and save them from their own stupidity. (After arguably starting the War.)
In the seventeenth and eighteenth century, “conservative revolution” would not have been an oxymoron. At that time, a revolution was not a fundamental break with the past but a society revolving back to its original “first principles.” In other words, they understood “revolution” in terms of their own cyclical perspective on history.
That North Vietnam example needs a little context there because that passage you quoted was included as a means to try and garner US support and goodwill in getting Vietnamese independence from France who at the time was a US ally and was planning on reestablishing control over the country after Japanese occupation (and because the US was the geopolitical giant of the region following the second world war). The inclusion of the quote was part of a larger diplomatic effort on Ho Chi Minh's part to try and get an alliance with the US as diplomatic cover against what would end up being the First Indochina War, and quite frankly they didn't give a stuff about communism before that, they turned to communism as a means to achieve support for their independence movement later on.
I learned so much, I never knew some of the founders moved back or that even some communist revolutions were inspired by the American. I’ll definitely show this to other people, subscribed.
Can you do a deep dive on the articles of confederation and how the government actually worked under it? I think you are the perfect channel to really give it the focus and context it really deserves. Most of the time, its seems left out of US history or just glossed over as the thing that existed before the Constitution.
Short story: it didn't really work. That fact, combined with the fact that it didn't last, is probably why most people gloss over it. It is an interesting topic, however.
@@stanklepoot Yeah its precisely that it didn't work that its skipped over. But its a 7 year period where there were 9 heads of states that tried to make it work that's just completely left out of the popular history of Revolution -> Beat the Brits -> James Madison writes the Constitution myth. Heck they did some important things during this period like open up Ohio territory after settling all the existing state land claims, figure out how to set up new states, and stop expansion of slavery above the Mason Dixon line when adding states.
I feel it was revolutionary in the sense that it was the First Nation of enlightenment ideals... even if not all where followed id argue it was important in that sense
A liberal revolution is an excellent way to put it, which I have been arguing for some time. The American revolution was certaintly revolutionary for its time, liberalism was a newly sprouting ideology and had far more entrenched beliefs to combat. But its fundamental assumptions are that of today's assumptions, and I would argue are being severely challenged by the modern neo-liberal epoch
The 7 Years’ War was probably the first global war. The French and Indian War was the North American theater. Many theaters of it had their own names (the Third Silesian War was the war between Prussia and Austria, etc.).
Hello :) first time I’ve seen one of your videos, you just popped up in my que. 2 reasons I hit subscribe within the first 20 secs. 1; You have a copy of War is a Racket predominantly displayed. In my opinion, one of the most important books to ever be written. It should be up there with the Art of War in it’s importance. 2; the name of your channel, the ‘cynical’ in particular. Though I usually strongly oppose the modern use of the word, I do think it is rather appropriate. Anyway, I thought the video was well done. I look forward to exploring your channel. Cheers :)
I've heard the American Revolution be described as a civil war rather than a revolution, since at the time both sides identified as British, there was no real sense of national identity yet, and the idea of independence only gained more mainstream support later. The American Revolution, while it did popularise new ideas, is also overshadowed by the French Revolution because... it was the French Revolution! A revolution that completely changed the world and its effects are still being felt to this day. The effects of 1776 are near insignificant in comparison to 1789 just a decade later, which is why most of the world focuses so much more on it.
I remember winning a clsss debate in high school by arguing that the American Revolution wasn't even a revolution. I put a lot of work into that project. It was not easy to get people to agree with that. It was one fully functional country fighting to get away from the rule of another country. Revolutions lead to tons of pointless executions and mindless chaos. True to its name revolutions go 360 degrees and end up pretty much in the same place they were before. Or maybe a worse version of where they were..... Americans didn't murder the government. That is why we have it good, and Russia had it bad. A little respect goes a long way.
Back in the 1970s when i was a freshman in college i had a professor say the American revolution was a conservative revolution all the way, he was right.
I'm surprised this video didn't even mention Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France which does in fact argue that the American revolution was a conservative reaction against British policies.
Well argued. But a peeve of mine. Enormity means “incomprehensible evil,” and I doubt any historians or philosophers framed the revolution thusly. It does not mean immensity, or great size or importance. That word is enormousness.
The War of the Regulation is completely ignored and they always point to New England, but in my opinion the Revolution started ten years earlier in North Carolina
I recall from a doc that Ho Chi Min actually looked up to the founding fathers and America before their involvement. dunno how true it is but interesting example to bring up tho
He was certainly disappointed by Woodrow Wilson, who refused to sit with Ho in 1919. But at the same time, the US supported his guerilla efforts during WWII, so it's difficult to say how much animosity remained from Wilson's belligerence
I think it’s important to note that the whole American Revolutionary War for Independence was not a revolution in the short term but in the long term it was. Life in Colonial America didn’t change much in the short term but after a long time the United States was definitely a revolutionary country. And while I have lots critical opinions on the U.S. political system, the structure of how our republic is run as described by the U.S. Constitution made the United States of America one of the most stable nations on Earth and while I don’t think we are the single best nation on Earth when it comes to standards of living, far from it, our liberal revolution was definitely a great thing. I’d also say the French and Russian revolutions were also revolutionary but in a different way than the Americans. Great video
The British side of things is always quite interesting to delve into. I live in Philadelphia and when I'm questioned about it in the Old City area, I like to point out that the hard lessons the British learnt were why they ultimately went on to form the British Empire and successfully interact with complex places like India or the Middle East, as compared to others who relied on brutalisation and marshal law to maintain colonies
Any channel recommendations for a religious history of the America? The awakenings, Mormonism, Progressive era, influence of religion in early colonial identity and the religion of the founding father’s sort of thing?
Now give examples, otherwise there will be no difference. As it stands, the comment does not disapprove the original argument. It's not a discourse without a thought out rebuttal. I'm tempted to say no, they weren't any different, to win by default of no opposing argument. Though I don't think it's true. Nicholas II had far superior facial hair.
As a dutch historian I must comment that the patriots or Patrioten, were not really infleunced by the American war of Independence. The term Patriotten, or patriot,was used already by anti-Orangist dutch during the French invasion of 1747. They were the people were against the rule of the Stadholder, of the house Orange-Nassau, which held as army commander a semi-royal position.Thier faillures in the 18th century caused some opposition forming the patriotten. There was an other opposition the Statetish, but they were mostly merchant elites and the patriotten saw in them too only hinderance to real democracy. The patriotten after french defeat fled to france or continiued in hiding. Arming themselves and establish militia as early as the 1750s. Even in some places through used of force they pressured mayors to be democratic. They officially started to call themselves patriots in 1756 and could be categorized in Aristocrats and Democrats, as the first was the strongest in the beging, the democrats won after the french invasion in 1790s. The conflict that you are refering was arose after the dutch joined the Allianced of Armed Neutrality a alliances of states that traded with the US during the war and protected them against british pirateering. This caused the 4th Dutch-English naval war were the dutch preformed poorly, which angered the patriots which saw the US as allies. The blame was put on the Orange stadtholder and lead to the rise of "public excerise groups" which is a fancy way of saying militia. The goverment of the republic fearing redical men marching around with guns and Stadtholder seeing his monopoly on being the commander of troops threated, tried by law clamping down such movements. Yet situation escalated, the patriots in multiple cities used thier armed might to exclude organist candidates from local elections and pushed thier own, especially in Utrecht. The patriots in Holland, the leading province in federal structure of the republic, disposed the stadtholder and advised militia in other provinces to prepare but stay put. This did not prevent individual action. Finally it came to a battle at Utrecht between both sides which the patriots won. The changing in this affair came however when princess Wilhelmina, the wife of the stadtholder, fledt from patriot controled Nijmwegen to Den Haag to gain more support for her husband. She was intercepted by patriot militia and held hostage. Calling upon her brother for help, the King of Prussia, his request for her freeing was ignored and he send in his army put down the patriot uprising. Most fled to France and the US and would return with revolutionary armies. These events took place between 1785 and 1787. Although the American war of independence was a cause for the uprising, it was not as much inspired by it as much it was the escalation of tension that existed before 1775. Although both events where the product of the same movement of thought the enlightment. P.S. Do not forget that we dutchies inspired your declaration of Independence.
P.P.S. 12:23 the argument that Jefferson has made in the first paragraph, was coppied by Jefferson form the Plakkaat van Verlatinge, Act of Abjuration, which was the Dutch declaration of independence in 1581. www.newnetherlandinstitute.org/history-and-heritage/additional-resources/dutch-treats/the-act-of-abjuration/ Sorry for taking a way the singularity of the declaration of Independence. but it is, shamefully, unkown today. Keep up the good work and your videos are a reall enjoyment.
I don't know much about other countries but it is interesting that the US Constitution was also written in such a way that stated this is what the federal government CAN do and everything not mentioned within it is reserved to the states. That being said we have seen a lot of power creep through the life of our country from the national level that saw state's powers shrunk.
I thought historians were annoyed by constantly referencing the 'big 3' of US history (The American Revolution, American Civil War, and American involvement in WWII)? :-) Just kidding (Although I liked your diatribe on the top 12 annoyances of historians as well)! Another great show as usual, overing different perspectives/schools of thought succinctly and fairly impartially. I hadn't thought of Jefferson's use of Natural Law arguments as an opposition to Positive Law before, though I know that (apparent) dichotomy has popped up at other significant times in history (The Nuremberg trials after WWII, for example). I wonder if the recent swing towards what some think of as post-modern thought (I know 'post modern' seems to be pretty ill defined, but the thought seems to be that nothing has any meaning except as how we choose to define it; change how we define something, and we've changed reality) is soon to be followed once again by a swing back towards something more like Natural Law? Or perhaps there are other ways of looking at things besides 'Natural' vs 'Postiive' Law? How has has the contemporary state of 'scientific' knowledge (Or even the changing definition of 'science' itself) interacted with those shifts? It would be interesting to see what the trends have been throughout history and how they might inform speculation about our current times and near future. (Hope I wasn't too confusing there! tl;dr, please keep making great videos!)
The Holy Trinity of US History shall takeover all, mwahaha. I had to though. This is actually based on an argument I've heard all semester long, so just needed to get a more nuanced take into the world. I'd say natural vs positive rights aren't really affected by postmodernism. But it does appear that positivism is doing better than naturalism these days (not that I'm complaining)
Some corrections on the Declaration of Independence: The vote on July 2nd was not about the declaration, it was the Lee Resolution "That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States". It was the vote for Independence itself, not the document. The document was voted for on the 4th, and printed that night. As you say, the hand-written "engrossed" copy was not created till August, but that copy was ceremonial only. The copy sent to Brittain was a printed broadside so nobody needed to wait for the parchment one to be finished or signed. As Americans we're raised to think of the declaration of Independence as a peice of parchment rather than a body of text- but the later us what the Congress voted for on the 4th.
Also, Adams posited that the 2nd would be celebrated but he didn't complain about the 4th. In fact, celebration of the 4th didn't become standard in his lifetime.
The Colonists rebelled to throw off the authority of the King and Parliament...rebellion not revolution as Parliament and the King himself was not meant to be overthrown.
On one hand, the thirteen states formed the first federated democratic republic under a written constitution: a contract of assent between the government and the governed, and an instruction manual for the government, that recognized no monarch. On the other, it preserved a landed gentry, withheld the voting franchise from women, Blacks, and White men without property, and preserved the enslavement of Black captives and their offspring in the states where it already existed.
Nope no chance to paraphrase Vladimir Ilyich (Lenin) TV is the opium of the people. Many of us Brits can't be arsed to do anything other than watch TV sadly.
I have to say that in Vietnam declaration of independence case, it was rather a political move to get friendly with the US to not aiding France coming back to established its Indochina colonies. I don't know much about history but if by this video logic, American Revolution is revolutionary in establishing constitution, properties right and natural law then was France Revolution not revolutionary (except nationalism) in term of political structure because US have done it first? Is there any more that French Revolution is more than American Revolution in your vid? French revolution destroy monarchy, establish individual freedom and properties right?
eh i make light of it because it didn't last, and they just ended up replacing the king with napeleon as emperor... the USA in its republic form, is the same to this day. we've had many presidents, no ruling one man. like whatever french revolution established, is it really that important since it was just wiped clean, restarted, wiped clean restarted (story of france lmao)
Well there is also the fact that at the time a far off colony doing there on thing and founding a republic is not world changing for most of Europe, but when one of the most important nation in Europe does it (in some way go even further, like killing the king and destroying the church) well its a big no no for the rest of Europe and by extension the world
That was a total coincidence. The story goes that Louis XVI asked "is Paris in rebellion?" And some other guy responded "no, it's a revolution" They didn't really have a lot of shit to go with before coming up with the name.
Please do a video on TURN: Washington's Spies. It's not 100% historically accurate (what is?), but I was pleasantly surprised how accurate it was. Pretty much every single main character is based on a real person, and all of the main events that happen in the show stayed as close as possible to the actual history, while still being incredibly entertaining.
The last sentence really nails it: Yes the world does admire the American Revolution, but for very different reasons than most Americans think. The US was a safe haven and a symbol of hope for freedom and democracy. But at almost no point in history they were the best at implementing those ideals. It wasn’t glorious that the Civil War ended slavery in 1865, it was shameful that it took a civil war to accomplish that less a decade before even the last European nations abandoned serfdom. Obamacare isn’t a new progressive experiment, general healthcare has been for granted for generations in Europe. But then again: America hasn’t had a Hitler, nor a Stalin.
Well said Cypher. Would perhaps be worth mentioning the neo-Whigs: Bailyn, Wood, Rakove, et al, particularly because your position seems close to theirs. Great stuff though.
10:13 What kind of pseudo-intellectual statement is that? Of course he was, Napoleon and Luis XVI can be compared to each other for many many reasons but you cannot compare a serfdom-supporting conservative tsar who ruled over a medieval-esque backwards pre-industrial Russia to a man born into peasantry who actually introduced land reforms, social reforms and economic reforms when he came to power. If you're going to be a smartass and say something along the lines of their tyranny being comparable then sure, but even then you are comparing someone who prolonged Russia's involvement in a costly war they could not win and someone who ended it but effectively "started" a civil war within the country which he suppressed with some extent of brutality but not nearly as much as the deaths that can be attributed to the tsar's rule. I'm not even mentioning the rebellions the tsar suppressed before 1917. Hell, even if we talked about democratic reform, Lenin's party was still much more democratic than the powerless state Duma that Nicholas II installed (and dissolved at will). Bottom line is they are not comparable.
Way more than a third were loyalists at the outbreak. The centre for the Boston Tea Party told us about 5% wanted independence from Britain before fighting truly broke out
As a Britisher, it was only relatively recently that I realised that when Americans talk about "the Rebels", they are only referring to the ones that lost the Civil War, and not also the ones that won the War of Independence.
e·nor·mi·ty /iˈnôrmədē/ _noun_ 1. the great or extreme scale, seriousness, or extent of something perceived as bad or morally wrong. 2. a grave crime or sin.
In Law School (I started academic at law school) we call these rights First Generation rights, aka Fundamental rights. I guess Americans have it a little different from Roman-Germanic law since they do not recognise Second Generation Rights, aka Labour Rights as a constitutional law. In our system, most of Europe and Latin America uses Roman-Germanic law, we are now in Third Generation rights, aka Environmental Rights.
US rights evolve over time, but we don't consider them by generation. They are far too fluid for that. Some are constitutional amendments, but others are simply laws or decisions from the supreme court. That's how we have things like the GI Bill or gay marriage. Labor has certain federal rights like an 8-hour work-day. Those were Great Depression era things, but nothing in the constitution guarantees them
Yep independence war = civil war = revolution = revolt = insurgency = mutiny = popular uprising = rebellion = internal war = NSAs vs the government = coup d'etat = etc..
Pavlovic....Having grazed through all of the above comments , many of which were better than in most commentary strings , your eight word comment was the most succinct and memorable ..... >>>>>>>Joel Laykin , Hong Kong , China
I'd argue that the putting forth the idea of separation of church and state was incredibly revolutionary. A country not having a state church was almost unheard of, and that is something that has separated the US from most other European nations, especially at the time. The Founders saw the conflicts that could arise by giving preference to one sect over another, and so instituted a secular state that encoded religious toleration into its founding documents.
As a Marxist I often encounter cynical online american leftists who deride the American Revolution as "not really revolutionary". It's probably coming from an honest point of view, sick of US nationalistic myths, but in my view an incorrect one. The American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, and like in all bourgeois revolutions there was a proto-proletarian/petit-bourgeois tendency in that Revolution that went beyond what the main leaders envisioned. I highly recommend Gary B Nash's 'The Urban Crucible' as a study of these elements of the "common folk" who enthusiastically participated in the American Revolution, and placed more hope in it than the United States would deliver.
So the upper-class wanted to take full power from the reigns it was sharing with Britain and using the uniquely American talent for making corporate action seem like populist advancement, convinced the poorer people that they were fighting for something 'more than' their own corporate coup. Populist enthusiasm for something doesn't make it a revolution. It didn't deliver on what was promised because it's promises were slogans and not actual objectives. In the end, everything 'gained' was already provided by the British authority, and to an extent some rights are reduced especially from African Americans
@@kpimkpim349 You certainly won't find the modern terminology of a "corporate coup" in any of the historiography ... The ruling class in the American colonies wanted to break free from the restrictions of the British Empire and pursue the free development of capitalism across the continent. In truth, they would have been perfectly happy with a compromise as long as they could keep expanding their personal fortunes. A compromise and guarantees of their rights to property and government was what the Continental Congress pursued. Independence was a minority opinion among the Congress until the pressure of events forced their hand. The agitation among the masses, who had been brought onto the stage and went beyond the control of the ruling class is what drove the American Revolution to what was then seen as a radical rupture with Britain, by declaring Independence and establishing a Republic. True, after gaining Independence the same ruling class enacted a counter-revolution, establishing the supremacy of the big bourgeois, plantation owners and landholders. We cannot understand the American Revolution by sidelining the activity of the masses of ordinary people, confining its history to the intentions of a handful of patricians and new world aristocrats.
I get in arguments with “conservatives” all the time about The Revolutionary War and they’ll get extremely defensive without providing any historical evidence to support their argument that the revolutionary war was a “conservative” movement. I actually brought this up to someone recently. In the time period of the Revolutionary War the loyalists were the conservatives (to conserve) in the context of that period. Loyalists, also known as Tories, were colonists who remained loyal to the British Crown and opposed the American Revolution. They believed in CONSERVING the existing social and political order, which included a strong connection to Britain. The loyalists were conservative in their desire to preserve the colonial relationship with Britain and maintain the status quo. They feared the potential chaos and uncertainty that could arise from revolution and preferred to maintain stability and continuity with the British government. In the context of the time, the pro-American Revolutionists were seen as advocating for more progressive ideas and left-wing principles. These ideas were formed from The Enlightenment Era (People like Adam Smith) The revolutionaries sought to challenge and overthrow the existing social and political order, which included opposition to British rule and the fight for independence. The pro-American Revolutionists, often referred to as Patriots or Whigs, believed in principles such as individual liberty, representative government, and equality. They sought to establish a new form of government that would prioritize these values and provide greater rights and opportunities for the colonists. While it's important to note that political ideologies can be complex and may not align perfectly across time periods, the pro-American Revolutionists' pushed for democratic representative governance in a republic, individual rights, and equality can be considered left-wing within the context of the Revolutionary War era. “Liberal” first obtained a political meaning from European writers during the enlightenment era, most importantly Adam Smith. Smith adopted “liberal” as the name for his “system of natural liberty.” The Wealth of Nations propounded “the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice,” and “the liberal system” of free enterprise. The book was highly influential, and other thought leaders followed suit in adopting the term “liberal.” And, no! I do not identify as liberal.
Great video. But the check and balance sistem was centuries old in 1776 and in place in most of the dozens of old republics scattered across Europe (Venice for example).
Yeah, this is why it wasn't revolutionary at all. Republicanism was nothing new, and constitutionalism already existed (albeit not as much as republicanism in general). America wouldn't even have one if France actually realized it was broke. And in my opinion, America could have been better off if it remained a British colony Btw, I'm American
I think I've done too much RU-vid when you started reading the declaration of independence I heard "When in the course of human events it becomes necessary..." And after that i immediately autofilled in my head "for a battle to commence" from Epic Rap Battles of History.
Could you argue that the effects of the revolution were far more intellectual? That is in the short term the ideals wouldn't change the US too much, but in the long term it would have a radical impact on the world.
Funny, I thought most of the signers of the Declaration died in the United States. I think one died at sea in his way to France, but the the only one I know.
"was Lenin that different from Nicholas II" yes.... yes he was. how is that even a question. the ussr was SO radically different in nearly every single way
To a considerable extent, the imposition of the US constitution was a "counter-revolution by committee" (Charles Beard) that revived centralised governance and coercive national powers, signifying continuity with the old regime. Recalling around "no taxation without representation" (James Otis) and the ultimatum of "liberty or death" (Patrick Henry) it is an ironic fate that "the constitution created a national government with greater power than Britain had ever exercised over the colonists" (Alan Taylor). Indeed, the constitution failed to restore the local autonomy enjoyed under 'salutary neglect' and trialled under the Articles of Confederation (1781-1789), and instead continued the trend of increasingly, centralised and unaccountable political representation. Similarly, the unequal status of Native Americans, women, and slaves was scarcely remedied by the American Revolution. The brutal violence against Native Americans observed amidst the Pontiac Rebellion and the Paxton Boys Slaughter (1763) was echoed and escalated in Logan's Raid of 1786 and the Little Turtle War (1785-1795). Progressive historian Howard Zinn Poignantly reflects that "with the British out of the way, the Americans could begin the inexorable process of pushing Indians off their lands, killing them if they resisted" while Francis Jennings notes the irony that "white Americans were fighting against British imperial control in the East and for their own imperialism in the West." Despite the active participation of women in the revolution, from early political agitation in 'Spinning Clubs' and the 'Daughters of liberty' to their vital services rendered unto the Continental Army in the American War of Independence (1775-1783), this demographic achieved little gains in this ostensibly enlightened revolution. In spite of Abigail Adams' now famous plea to her husband John Adams to "remember the ladies", after 1776 no state specifically permitted women to vote, and the demographic continued to endure the indignity of "virtual representation" - the very ideological impetus for the Revolution. Some idealistic historians such as Gordon Wood have suggested that "republicanism" and "commercial expansion in America" combined to "enhance the status of women" in the new regime by allowing a degree of previously unattainable financial freedom, but such gains are modest in magnitude. Undoubtedly the most tragic continuity in the American Revolution however is the continued subordination of African Americans as 'chattel' property. Both the three-fifths clause and the sunset clause codified the political inequality of slaves and ensured the continued operation of the inhumane practice for another generation as "the constitution... protected slavery and gave the South enormous political leverage" (Paul Finkelman). Moreover, even the Bill of Rights, a document which championed egalitarianism and civil liberties failed to fulfill the promise made by Jefferson's Declaration of Independence that "all men are created equal" as Madison's amendments protected only the free, leaving untouched the slavery suffered by one-fifth of the American people. But while a substantial degree of continuity prevailed with the implementation of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights did indeed enshrine positive change in American society. Specifically, Amendment 3 ensured that "no solider shall, in times of peace be quartered in any house" in reference to the much-maligned Mutiny Act revisions (1765 and 1774) while Amendment 4 guarantees "the right of the people to be secure in their persons... against unreasonable searches and seizures" to preclude any further 'writs of assistance'. Controversial in our contemporary context but universally celebrated in late 18th century America, Amendment 2 ensured and continues to ensure an American's right to "keep and bear arms" in reaction to the Powder Alarms of 1774 and the reality that "the American Revolution was made possible by an armed population" (Howard Zinn).
I really enjoyed your thesis that the American Revolution was something of a rebellion in order to maintain the status quo, as the still newly-sovereign British Parliament was flexing its power over the colonies in unpopular ways. Would you agree that the 1772 Somerset Decision of the Court of King's Bench, which found no basis in the Common Law for slavery, might have also raised fears of further forthcoming changes in American Law?
