Dylan Dance

Dmd2225
HIS 315K
The American Revolution

The events in England’s North American colonies from 1775 to 1783 can be more

precisely described as a revolution, rather than merely a war for independence. It was the

unique American ideals that had taken shape just before the war which led to both the

overthrow of a government and the formation of a republic, and also the revolutionary

social changes that followed. By 1775, Americans were ready for a government entirely

independent from and drastically different than Great Britain’s constitutional monarchy.

It is through an understanding of these new American ideals that this becomes evident.

Prior to the French and Indian war, colonists were largely unaffected by the

monarch in their day to day lives. Both Great Britain and the American colonies

benefitted from mutual trade and the colonies had more or less run themselves with little

effort from the king. England won the war by 1763, but had also amassed a huge amount

of debt and the British East India Company was on the verge of bankruptcy. England

turned to the colonies to pay off this debt, and it was then that the ideologies of the old

monarchy and the American colonies clashed. Once England began to implement taxes

such as the Stamp and Townshend Acts, it became apparent to the English colonists that

their purpose for commerce was far different than the British Empire’s. The empire used

income from the colonies to fund foreign wars, conquer foreign resources and glorify

England’s aristocracy. The colonists, on the other hand, sought profit from commerce

only to benefit their own prosperity. Thomas Payne argued that the colonies had no affair

with such foreign interests, besides “what have [the colonists] to do with setting the

world at defiance”(Payne)? He saw that their priority and “plan [was]

commerce” which would, “well attended to… secure [them] the peace and friendship

1
Dylan Dance
Dmd2225
HIS 315K
of all Europe”(Payne).

This may at first seem only like a reason for the colonists to declare independence

from Great Britain, but in fact it was an essential principle for the creation of a republic

“for the people”. The colonies needed more than just independence from Great Britain;

rather, they much more appropriately sought individual independence. Much of this

growing sense of independence was of an economic nature. Because of lucrative and

mostly unaffected commerce, many poor men were able to begin successful businesses

and, through many years of hard work, become rich. One such man, Moses Cooper, had

humble beginnings as a farmer and sawmill owner in Glocester, Rhode Island. By the

time he was sixty he had become the richest man in the town: owning several slaves and

having the means to employ several men. There were also, on the other hand, instances of

social independence. Quite notably, premarital pregnancies and elopement rose

dramatically from 1760 to 1775. This is widely interpreted as defiance against the

patriarchal system by children of the period. It might seem insignificant by today’s

standards, but in English colonial America such things were bold signs of resistance to a

system that had been imbedded in English culture for centuries.

Simply put, English colonists saw that liberty allowed them to act independently;

moreover, a government that would facilitate such liberty would allow them to rely on

themselves for their own well being. They realized they did not need or want a monarch.

This idea of democracy was very different from that of England’s: there the king was

actually a symbol of liberty and was portrayed as someone who looked after the rights of

his people.

2
Dylan Dance
Dmd2225
HIS 315K
As unrest grew in the colonies just before the American Revolutionary War, it

was clear that the colonists were ready for social reform; and yet, it was difficult to see

just how liberty would realize itself in the new government. Before a form of government

could be carefully chosen, fighting broke out between the revolutionaries and the

loyalists. Amidst the turmoil of war, the Continental Congress would create a new

confederation of republics. This declaration was not just a petty power dispute with the

British Empire: it was a well thought out and revolutionary set of ideals that sought to

create a better society for its people.

Nevertheless, some historians argue that the formation of these republics was not

the source of revolutionary social change. They claim that by the end of the war,

republicanism had not significantly changed the lives of poor whites, women, and slaves.

In some states, such as Massachusetts and Maryland, laws still existed to keep poor

whites out of office, and in southern colonies like Virginia and South Carolina slavery

was still practiced on large scales. Furthermore, almost every state chose to more or less

ignore extending rights to women. These all may seem like valid viewpoints to the

modern historian; however, upon further inspection this kind of analysis becomes largely

ineffectual. It is true that some state constitutions limited the rights of the poor and

slaves. Yet, in others such as Pennsylvania, any taxpaying male over the age of twenty

could vote. And though slavery continued in southern colonies, it was abolished

altogether in states like Rhode Island and Massachusetts. In short, it is inadequate to

explain the ideals of early American republicanism through the states’ constitutions, as

they are blatantly inconsistent. It is far more practical to study the Declaration of

Independence if we seek to understand the merits of the republican revolutionaries. The

3
Dylan Dance
Dmd2225
HIS 315K
Declaration itself did nothing to disenfranchise the rights of poor whites, women, and

blacks. In fact, by establishing “that all men are created equal”, and “that they are

endowed … with certain unalienable Rights”, the Declaration set the precedent for these

rights to be extended to all citizens. Progress was made towards such ends as soon as the

late 1770s. Many states’ constitutions emulated the clause which stated that all men were

created equal; hence, the abolition of slavery in these states was the direct result of

republican merit. The Northwest Ordinance was also a republican effort to quell the

practice of slavery in future states. Indentured servitude also declined dramatically soon

after the Declaration was established. For example, in Philadelphia the percentage of the

unfreed population (including indentured servants and slaves) had decreased to 13

percent in 1775 from nearly 50 percent in the 1750s (Gordon S Wood, 266). The

Declaration may have not abolished slavery in itself, but it created an environment in

which slavery and servitude in general was no longer justifiable. The same can be said

about the issue of women’s rights. Women generally enjoyed more virtuous marriages

and more agreeable divorce rights, which seem to have developed synonymously with

liberty. Nonetheless, they mostly made no advances in public or political affairs. On the

other hand, though, the Declaration also did nothing to imbed a patriarchal system into

the republic, and its virtues can be partly credited for the eventual advancement of

women’s rights in much later years.

Other historians argue that the war for independence was only a ploy for colonial

elites to take power from the British, and that any efforts towards social equality were

largely fruitless. Howard Zinn argues that “the rebellion against British rule allowed a

certain group of colonial elite to replace those loyal to England… and leave working

4
Dylan Dance
Dmd2225
HIS 315K
people … in very much their old situation” (Zinn, 255). This argument miserably fails to

understand the objectives of the American idealism which led the country to war in the

first place. Zinn confuses the liberal movement of the English colonists with the more

modern socialist revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries. The American Enlightenment

led by the founding fathers promotes liberty, while the latter movement promotes total

social equality. The two concepts are certainly not one in the same. The founding fathers

were by no means “social levelers” (Wood, 257). English colonials did not see that their

problems arose from social classes, but came about from colonial “connections to

monarchal authority” instead (Wood, 257). Colonial American Liberalism did not find its

roots in only the lower classes: the themes of liberty spanned all English colonial social

classes. Many wealthy colonials became patriots once the revolution started: consider

every founding father. The patriotic colonial upper class was in fact fundamentally

different from British aristocrats and wealthy colonial loyalists. This difference

exemplified itself during the Townshend Act in 1767, when the patriotic poor and

wealthy English colonials alike boycotted British goods. The wealthy actually began to

embrace frugality and appreciate the industriousness of the lower classes. Of course,

some wealthy colonials undoubtedly resisted more democratic reform. Such resistance

makes itself clear in many of the states’ constitutions: Massachusetts had an especially

conservative constitution. It soon became apparent, though, that such efforts were

ultimately balanced out by the social changes that had taken place. Shay’s Rebellion in

1786, for instance, exemplifies that the American people had already institutionalized

democracy, and demanded it from their government. Even Thomas Jefferson, who was

somewhat of an elitist himself, realized that “a little rebellion … is a necessary medicine

5
Dylan Dance
Dmd2225
HIS 315K
for the sound health of the government” (Jefferson). The revolution brought about an

upper class that embraced and cared, more or less, about the plight of the working class.

The colonial overthrow of the monarch was more than just a shift of power from

English to American aristocrats; instead, it was a social revolution which led to an

unprecedented companionship between social classes. It was, undoubtedly, only the

beginning of a long democratic process to pursue liberty, but the same American colonial

idealism which fueled the revolution still fuels the American people today.