Question:
When
did the war of independence first get described as a revolution? Was it so
considered by the people who were engaged in it? Are there any modern students
of the period who deny that it was a revolution?
Answer:
OK,
I’ll take a stab at this. Not easy
questions to answer holistically.
European
political philosophers had discussed the aspects of “revolutionary”
governmental change for decades, if not centuries, prior to the American War
for Independence (AWI).
The
term “revolution” was notably used 80 years before the AWI. The ousting of catholic King James II in
1688-1689, replacing him with the joint protestant monarchy of his daughter
Mary and her Dutch husband William of Orange via the method of Dutch military
conquering of Scotland, Ireland, followed by key English leadership defections,
desertions, capitulations and surrender of the Lords of Parliament (a house
stacked by King James II), was called “the Glorious Revolution”.
While
this action was primarily a regime change-- the replacement of one monarch
(catholic) with a pair of monarchs (protestant) by military force -- as a
condition of assuming the throne William and Mary were forced to sign a
document called the “Declaration of Rights” (subsequently known as the “Bill of
Rights”), which asserted several principles such as the illegality of
prerogative suspending and dispensing powers, the prohibition of taxation
without parliamentary consent, and the principle of holding regular
parliaments.
In
reality, the “Bill of Rights” placed few real restrictions on the crown. It was
not until 1694 that the call for regular parliaments was backed up by the
Triennial Act. Following the Triennial
Act, Parliament gained powers over taxation, over the royal succession, over
appointments and over the right of the crown to wage war independently. However, the “Glorious Revolution” fails in
the enlightenment definition of “revolution” because it wasn’t a fundamental
change of government: monarchs replaced monarchs. Plus, it failed to limit the
power of monarch or parliament through a body of law or enact a constitution
applicable to the rights of citizens; no draft of a constitution adopted by the
citizens who would be ruled by it. Last,
it wasn’t a rising by the people to affect change, but rather a conquest by a
foreign military alliance to impose a favorable crown succession. Because of these flaws, the Septennial Act of
1716 was able to effectively undermine the terms of the 1694 Triennial Act, and
subsequent abuses of both monarchial and parliamentary power required further
adaptations throughout the next centuries.
In
the late 17th and early 18th century the political meaning of the term
“revolution” began to be more definitively shaped by enlightenment
philosophers. The revolutionary nature
of the AWI was not simply a regime change, but rather the creation of an
entirely new nation and the adoption of a new form of government by that
nation. Though the sprawling nature of
the American “continental” government and slow communication made the form of
direct democracy envisioned by enlightenment philosophers impractical
(Rousseau’s theory of direct democracy), the American republican
(representative) democracy met the enlightenment era philosophical definition
of “democracy” and was substantively different in both form and execution from
the former monarchial-based government; and it was backed by a constitution and
code of law at both the state and federal levels.
Though
the term “revolution” was better defined by the time of the outbreak of the AWI
in 1775, it was not an appropriate term for the AWI until the point at which
the colonists determined to change the nature of the conflict from one which
sought to preserve their rights as Englishmen to one which sought to establish
a new nation under new principles of government.
We
might argue that an effective “revolution” had already taken place in
Massachusetts; since the colonists had created a democratic government which
controlled the instruments of power (legislative, legal, executive) throughout
the colony to supplant the previous governmental structures which had been
suspended (disbanded) by the Crown. Arguably, after the Boston Port Act
Massachusetts could have been described as fighting to preserve this newly
adopted governmental structure already in place.
The
same argument arguably applied to Connecticut for an even greater period, since
Connecticut had been governed virtually autonomously by a locally elected
legislative, executive, and judicial establishment since 24 January 1639; when
the delegates from assembled colonial towns adopted the first written
constitution in the world composed by those it governed, known as “Fundamental
Orders”. However, these two colonies
were unique until Crown-appointed governors closed the offices of administration
in other colonies and fled the land, being replaced by locally elected
legislators, judiciary, and legal officers.
The bright line might be considered the Declaration of Independence. Until that time correspondence between the
Continental Congress and Britain’s ruler had focused on hope of
reconciliation. Thus, the Declaration of
Independence serves as that unique moment when the stated intent of the united
colonies changed from reconciliation under the British monarch to independent
governance of a new nation under democratic principles.
With
that as background, you ask whether the American colonists recognized the AWI
as “revolutionary” in its own time. The
answer is an unqualified “yes”. Many of
those we consider “founding fathers” were students of the enlightenment and
studied the political and social philosophy espoused by Voltaire, Locke,
Rousseau, etc. They were aware of the
elements of revolution and used the term in private correspondence long before
the advent of open warfare with Britain.
But, if we consider the advent of true “revolution” to have occurred at
about the time that colonists determined to fight for self-rule, then
acknowledgement of the AWI as a “revolution” would have had to occur after that
moment. It absolutely did, on both sides
of the Atlantic and Europe. These are
but a very few applicable examples:
April
1776, William Henry Drayton’s charge to a South Carolina Grand Jury:
Carolinians: heretofore you were bound - by the American Revolution you are now
free. The change is most important, most
honorable, most beneficial… Unexpected, wonderful and rapid Movements,
character the British and American Revolutions - They do not appear to have
been premeditated by Man.
21
March 1778, Thomas Paine, “American Crisis”: “… this distinguished era is
blotted by no one misanthropical vice. In short, if the principle on which the
cause is founded, the universal blessings that are to arise from it, the
difficulties that accompanied it, the wisdom with which it has been debated,
the fortitude by which it has been supported, the strength of the power which
we had to oppose, and the condition in which we undertook it, be all taken in
one view, we may justly style it the most virtuous and illustrious revolution
that ever graced the history of mankind.”
1779,
Congress ordered the publication of a book titled, “Observations on the
American Revolution” written by Governor Morris in Philadelphia (“Observations on the American Revolution”)
Last,
as to whether any serious historians disagree with calling the AWI a
“revolution”: There is probably some
discussion regarding the theoretical meaning of “revolution”, but I’ve not read
anything from a serious historian disputing the AWI as “revolutionary” (let
them speak now or forever hold their peace).
Even Marxist theorists agree that the AWI was “revolutionary” because it
determined the forms of bourgeois political form, as well as capitalism and the
free market economy that altered empire-colony subsidiary relationships.
Some
modern scholars have started describing the AWI as a “civil” war based on the
type of fighting that occurred, which is worthy of comment. A “revolutionary” war is by definition fought
amongst people of the same country; that does not make it “civil”. That is the nature of all “revolutions”: some
citizens will support change, others will oppose it.
While
the broad object and effect of the AWI was politically “revolutionary”, at
least in the sense of the enlightenment era term, the conduct of the war in
some areas became partisan in nature; or even a “feud”. In many areas of the country there was a
decided preference for independence and self-governance, but in others the balance
was more narrow, and the causal factors of strife more local and more
personal.
In
colonies like Massachusetts, Connecticut, or Virginia the fight for principles
of individual rights versus submission to demands of an unrepresentative
Parliament may have been clear; in other areas of the country, especially the
southern frontiers where government had little real effect on daily life and
neither side had the resources necessary to exert military control over a vast
region, the grand revolutionary principles often faded against personal realities.
In
those areas differences in religion, affiliation of preachers, economic status,
migration, and family ties (both regional and trans-Atlantic) affected
allegiances. Differences were also based
on a variety of local issues such as prior land disputes, previous legal and
familial alliances, or the latest outrage or atrocity committed by either
side. Whenever the instruments of
government break down, mob rule takes over, and principled advocacy isn’t as
important as protecting kin, clan, and hearth.
For various reasons, the AWI in the southern regions, particularly in
the southern “back country” 1780-1782, became a partisan fight for survival
rather than for revolutionary principle.
That
is not sufficient region to brand the entire AWI as a “civil” war. When a population fights among itself,
whether for revolutionary or civil issues, the fighting can be vicious, and the
broader purpose becomes indistinguishable.
Though in some places at times the AWI fighting took on this partisan
aspect, the overall purpose and effect of the AWI, taken broadly, remained
“revolutionary” in nature: throwing off the mantle of old government to create
a new form of government; and a new nation where none previously existed.
For
that reason the AWI parallels, and even exceeds, the French, Russian, and
Iranian revolutions. All of these
featured bitter neighbor-on-neighbor partisan fighting and vicious purges of
opponents, yet the political goal and end results of substantive changes in
form of government define all of these, including the AWI, as “revolutionary”,
not “civil” wars.
No comments:
Post a Comment