Category: American Revolution

It took many different people, and different kinds of people for that matter, to make the American Revolution possible. Some you have probably heard of but others you may have not. These people made separate contributions that impacted the revolution differently and created what history is known for, which is cause and effect. An example of a few of the various acts that people did to support the revolution includes fighting in the war, boycotting goods, creating awareness towards specific topics, and plenty more. Even after hundreds of years, there are people today that resemble the ideas and influences of people from the American Revolution including athletes and political leaders.

John Adams was a Massachusetts-born lawyer that played a huge part in the upbringing of the American Revolution. It was during the 1760s when Adam first starting criticizing the British government and his belief that the king was not keeping the colonists’ interests in mind. He was a critic of the Stamp Act of 1765 and he spoke out multiple times about the Townshend Acts of 1767. Before the war had even started, Adams was already feeling the tension growing strong and he was preparing for the worst. Adams attended the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia as a Massachusetts delegate in 1774 and at the Second Continental Congress, he nominated George Washington to serve as the Commander of the Continental Army. Adams would also be the man to nominate Thomas Jefferson to write the draft of the Declaration of Independence. Towards the end of the Revolutionary War, John Adams traveled over to France to discuss the Treaty of Paris which signified the end of the war.

James Monroe was a Virginia born political leader that helped fight during the Revolutionary War. The future 5th president of the United States started his college career at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. A year after he had started school there, the Revolutionary war started. Being the Patriot that he was, Monroe was among the men that raided the Royale Palace of Lord Dunmore. They prevailed with catching 200 guns and 300 swords which were given to the Virginia Militia. In 1776, Monroe joined the Continental Army and moved up north to New York to help General George Washington. James Monroe was a part of multiple major battles during the Revolutionary War including the Battle of Long Island which after the defeat, forced his regiment to move to Pennsylvania. Another major battle he was a part of was the Battle of Trenton where he crossed the Deleware river ahead of George Washington’s main force. He was wounded in that fight after he was struck by a musket ball charging a group of Hessian soldiers with George Washington. Monroe was also with the Continental Army when they had to stay at Valley Forge. During the winter of 1777-78, the Continental Army stayed in Pennsylvania where resources were scarce and disease and malnutrition were everywhere. James Monroe did not participate in a few of the battles towards the end of the war because he started pursuing his career in law in the early 1780s. James Monroe supported the Revolution greatly by helping lead in major battles and acting as an assistant general to George Washington.

Thomas Paine was an English born political activist that helped support the American Revolution. Paine moved to Pennsylvania on November 30, 1774, and immediately found employment at the Pennsylvania Magazine. After the battles of Lexington and Concord occurred just five months after arriving in America, Paine printed a 50-page pamphlet called ‘Common Sense’. The main idea behind ‘Common Sense’ is that America should not just revolt against taxation but should demand independence from Britain altogether. The pamphlet relied on biblical references to get its point across as most average Americans could interpret it as a Sermon talking to them. Though it is unlikely ‘Common Sense’ influenced the Declaration of Independence, it was still a huge step in the right direction. During the American Revolution, Paine served as a volunteer personal assistant in the Continental Army. He did not fight but he did take the time to write his 16 “Crisis’ papers which were used to be read to the Continental Army by George Washington in hopes of inspiring them to victory. Thomas Paine returned to England in 1787 and became interested in the French Revolution and did not return to the United States until 1802 where he found his reputation dead. Thomas Paine was a huge influencer in the short time he participated in the Revolution and his ideas led to America’s Independence.

Robert Morris was an English born merchant that almost paid for most of the Revolutionary War on the side of the Patriots. Robert first got involved in the revolts against the British when the Stamp Act was instituted as he was a merchant apprentice at the time. Morris was elected to the Continental Congress in 1775 and in ‘76 he was given the authority to solicit money for the operation of the Revolutionary War. During the war, Morris also solicited money to the operations of ships that ran the British Blockades to get supplies to the colonists. In 1781, he submitted a plan to the United States government for a National Bank. His plan was approved and he was immediately appointed Secretary of the Treasury. Robert Morris was a merchant that helped support the colonist’s effort during the Revolutionary War by paying for and providing nearly all of the Continental Army’s supplies.

Finally, Henry Knox was a Boston born General during the Revolutionary War. He grew up being an avid reader which helped him later in his war career as he became very well informed about military science and artillery. In 1772, Knox joined a local militia group that was resisting British authority. Knox fought in some early battles of the Revolution including Bunker Hill in 1775. George Washington appointed Knox to a Colonel and Knox worked to defend the states of Connecticut and Rhode Island. After the British had forced Washington and Knox’s men to retreat across the Deleware River, the Continental Army made their famous return trip to surprise the British. Henry Knox played an important part in the Revolution as a courageous and inspiring leader of the Continental Army.

The three modern American activists whose actions are similar to the colonist’s actions during the Revolution. They are Dr. Jim Withers, Andrew Yang, and Colin Kaepernick. Dr. Jim Withers is a modern activist that wore homeless clothes two to three times a week to try to see the world from the eyes of someone else and bring attention to the homeless community. Withers is trying to change how the average person views the homeless while also trying to help them himself. Withers knows that medical needs are expensive for the homeless so he works to treat the homeless for free. Dr. Jim Withers relates to the people of the American Revolution because he is trying to shed light on a serious topic. Multiple people from the American Revolution made public protests and other gestures to bring attention to Britain’s unlawful rule over the colonies.

Andrew Yang is a democratic candidate for the 2020 election that is trying to fix certain issues in today’s American society. One of the policies that he is trying to gather support for is human-centered capitalism. His idea has 3 central points. One being that humans are more important than money. The other two are that the unit of a Human Capitalism economy is people, not money and that the markets exist to serve our common goals and values. Andrew Yang is trying to change the focus of our American economy. Andrew Yang relates to the people of the American Revolution because he is trying to improve the American economy along with the government. The Colonists were also focused on a change in the leaders of the government because their economy was being hurt due to British taxes.

The final modern activist is Colin Kaepernick. Colin Kaepernick was a quarterback for the San Francisco 49ers when he decided to kneel on the sideline during the national anthem of a nationally televised game. He was immediately criticized by people for not standing because they saw it as unpatriotic and rude or disrespectful to United States Veterans and the country as a whole. In an interview after the game, Kapernick explained himself by saying, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color”. Kaepernick is trying to change the way American society treats black people. He used a very strong source to get his point across as thousands attended the game and others watched from their televisions at home. Colin Kaepernick is similar to people of the American Revolution because he was willing to put himself on the line to get his point across. Just like patriots during the Revolution, Kaepernick acted with bravery and courageousness for a cause he believed in.

A cause that historians might label as one of the tips of the iceberg was all the regulations being implemented by the British. Regulations like the Sugar Act, the Currency Act, the Quartering Act, and the Stamp Act. The Sugar Act, passed in 1764, added taxes on goods like wine, sugar, coffee, and spices that were imported into America. This regulation angered many American colonists because it taxed them without consent and because they had no elected representative to represent them in parliament. They did not want taxation without representation which was a famous saying that we will get into when discussing another reason that led to the revolution which was, the Boston Tea Party.

Throughout the colonies, financial burdens were definitely felt. Americans tried printing their own money to accommodate for these burdens. The money being printed by these colonies could not be used in other colonies. Due to the colonies shortage of money, Britain expected that any debt Americans had was to be paid in gold, silver, or tobacco for that reason. That is how the Currency Act came about, fear of British creditors in the fluctuating value of the new currency introduced within the colonies.

The Quartering Act was a bill passed by Parliament that required Americans to house and feed the British troops that were there to protect Americans from the harm that Indians were causing. This bill left many Americans questioning the positions that the troops were supposed to stay. Americans thought that if the troops were stationed to protect them, then why were they not located at more frontier locations? However, colonists were forced to house troops despite whatever conditions. Americans were upset by this, because they had no say in the matter and it disrupted a lot of their everyday lives. If that was not enough to anger Americans, the British proceeded to anger them by passing the Stamp Act.

The Stamp Act put a fee on any paper that had an official government stamp on it. Government stamped documents included newspapers, college diplomas, licenses, bonds, insurances, and many other common documents. Americans were very frustrated, because it felt like every piece of paper was required to have a government stamp on it, which would come with a required fee. To make them even more upset, when the bill was implemented, Americans had no voice in the passing or structure of the bill. The Stamp Act was enforced involuntarily. However, it did make its way through Britain, as Benjamin Franklin’s daughter, Sally, who wrote a letter to her father explaining how upset Americans were and how confused she was in how her father could support a bill that went against what Americans wanted.

What if women had never taken part in history? Would they still be acknowledged as equally important as men? Throughout the centuries, women have always been important for society. For instance, Brooks (2013) points out that during the American Revolution, women would take the role of a spy to take down the British empire or write in an attempt to encourage and empower others. As such, the significance of a woman can both be explicit and implicit depending on people’s views. When it comes to writing literary works, women tend to have different topics, subjects, and purposes than men. In this essay, I will be addressing several questions regarding a particular American woman writer, Hannah Webster Foster, along with her literary work entitled ‘The Coquette’.

The particular author of my choice is Hannah Webster Foster, who is an early American novelist of the Revolutionary era. Hannah was born in Salisbury, Massachusetts, United States, on September 10th, 1758, to a wealthy family: Grant Webster, a rich merchant, and his wife, Hannah Wainwright (Freibert, n.d.). After her mother died in 1762, she was sent to an academy for women. By 1771, she began writing political articles for the local Boston newspapers, and she then met Reverend John Foster, a graduate of Dartmouth, in 1785 and married him. As a result, they had six children while settling in Brighton, Massachusetts. She moved to Montreal, Quebec, Canada, to live with her daughters, Harriet Vaughan Cheney and Eliza Lanesford Cushing, when John Foster died in 1829 (Freibert, n.d.). She died there at the age of 81 on April 17th, 1840. In total, she had written two novels throughout her lifetime, which are ‘The Coquette or The History of Eliza Wharton’ (1797) and ‘The Boarding School or Lessons of a Preceptress to Her Pupils’ (1798).

There are two reasons as to why I chose Hannah Foster as the subject of my essay. The first reason is that I notice men writers of the Revolutionary era tend to be more overrated than women. At one point, a number of women writers of the Revolutionary era were long-forgotten, and fortunately, their existence has been discovered by feminist scholars (VanSpanckeren, 1994, p. 25). I assume the cause of this phenomenon is as a result of the great significance and success of men writers that overshadowed the women’s works, roles, and contributions to literature and history themselves. By picking Hannah Foster to represent my essay, I aim for the women writers, along with their works, of this discussed period to reflect their true intentions and ways of life through Hannah Foster. The second and most important reason is that I feel she is much more underappreciated in terms of literary influence compared to other women writers. For instance, Judith Sargent Murray’s idea of the equality of the both sexes from her essay entitled ‘On the Equality of the Sexes’ (Debra Michals, 2015), and Mercy Otis Warren’s influence on colonial rights and liberties that later resulted in the American Revolution through her political writings (“Mercy Otis Warren,” 1999/2019). As such, my main reason is to explore the grey area of Hannah Foster’s literary works to bring more awareness of her literary purpose and find out more about her contribution and influence that she made during the era in which she lived.

Personally, what makes Hannah Foster stand out compared to other American authors is her interest and sense of purpose in her two novels for the sake of women. To be exact, she explored and wrote about real but rarely-discussed social conditions in her era, which is solely about gender roles, particularly women and their mandatory roles in society. For instance, in her epistolary novel 1 entitled ‘The Coquette or The History of Eliza Wharton’, she wrote about freedom and the deviation of gender roles (Osborne & Akatsuka, 2015/2019).

While in ‘The Boarding School or Lessons of a Preceptress to Her Pupils’, she wrote about female education, and how important it is for them to prepare for their own “survival” (Freibert, n.d.). In addition to her distinctiveness, she also did not assume a male persona and use masculine or gender-neutral pseudonyms. Unlike other women writers’ pen names, such as the name “The Gleaner,” which was used by Judith Sargent Murray (Michals, 2015), and Mercy Otis Warren’s alias, “a Columbian patriot” (“Mercy Otis Warren,” n.d.)

Despite Hannah Foster’s undocumented life, there are still some interesting facts about her. The first fact is ‘The Coquette’ was one of the best-selling American novels of the 18th and early 19th century, and it was even said to compete with the Bible in terms of popularity (Marchione, n.d.). The second one is she published her two novels under the pseudonym “A Lady of Massachusetts” (Freibert, n.d.). As a result, the big success of her novel entitled ‘The Coquette’ did not bring her great recognition and publicity as a writer back then. Fortunately, her name was recognized twenty-six years after her death. The third one is Hannah’s two daughters, Harriet Vaughan Cheney and Eliza Lanesford Cushing, got their chance to become popular 19th American-Canadian writers (Rubin & Casper, 2013, p. 431).

Hannah Foster’s literary work of my choice for this analysis is ‘The Coquette or The History of Eliza Wharton’, or only ‘The Coquette’ for short, and the following is a short summary of it. The story begins with Eliza Wharton, who is a beautiful but flirtatious young woman. She was once engaged to Mr. Haly, a man she did not sincerely love, who died due to illness. Soon, she captured the attention of Mr. Boyer and Major Sanford by continuously happily flirting with them, but she is reluctant to give up her freedom as a single woman as told to her mother and friends. At the same time, her friends keep encouraging her to marry Mr. Boyer. Due to the pressure of society, Eliza agrees to marry Mr. Boyer but doesn’t want to say when to marry him. One day, Mr. Boyer leaves her after catching her in the garden of her house talking with Major Sanford. As a result, Mr. Boyer and Eliza’s friends insult and shame her after the rumor goes out, and a few days later, Major Sanford also leaves her to marry a rich woman from the South. Not having men to marry anymore, she becomes desperate and resumes her “friendship” with Major Sanford. The story ends with Eliza’s death at a tavern near Boston, and she is revealed to have given birth but shortly died after it, along with the baby.

I chose the work entitled ‘The Coquette’ because of two reasons. The first reason is because of the uniqueness of both the main protagonist, which is Eliza Wharton, and the genre of which the story is structured, which is through letters, a.k.a epistolary. Truth be told, there are two other female characters in other 18th century literary works, such as Samuel Richard’s ‘Clarissa’ and Susanna Rowson’s ‘Charlotte Temple’, that have the same plotline as ‘The Coquette’ (Moran, 2014). However, in her defense, what makes Eliza Wharton from ‘The Coquette’ more unique as Moran (2014) points out is her full awareness of how bad the options of her given circumstances are because, in early America, women did not realize the options they truly have. The second reason is that I am quite interested in learning and finding out more about her purpose and motive behind writing such work entitled ‘The Coquette’. To be exact, to know her reason for writing the literary work based on the real case of Elizabeth Whitman.

This particular literary work’s reflection on the writer’s life is shown in many aspects. The first one is the way Hannah Foster wrote the story. In the story, her choice of words is sophisticated, and she used literary devices to get her points across to the readers. Particularly, she used a wide array of historical and literary allusions (Freibert, n.d.), such as the mention of Queen of Sheba in “LETTER IV” on page 39 of ‘The Coquette’, and Richardson’s ‘Clarissa’ is also mentioned on page 82. Knowing allusions means that the writer in question was knowledgeable, read a lot of books, and rich in literary experience.

Secondly, she was also a determined feminist who looked after other women through her implied meaning in the story. From my own analysis, even though the literary work may appear as ordinary escape literature, it has a deeper meaning than that for women to watch their behavior and actions so that they would not end up like Eliza Wharton: alone and died at the end of the story. She also wrote the story based on a real case of her cousin’s death, Elizabeth Whitman (“Elizabeth Whitman – The Mysterious Coquette of 1788,” 2015/2019). From my standpoint, I think she wanted to shed light on the said situation and did not want her cousin’s case to remain in silence anymore.

Third is that based on my own interpretation of the story, it also correlates with her marriage since Eliza Wharton was bored and found Mr. Boyle, a reverend, dull in terms of personality. However, she liked Major Sanford, a handsome womanizer, better and more charming. To put this in perspective, Hannah Foster was also married to a reverend named John Foster. I assume that the writer also indirectly reflects her own hidden inner desire of wanting to have someone more romantic and not boring in terms of personality and occupation. In addition, Hannah probably longed for the life in which people wouldn’t judge women based on their behaviors and appearance.

The following is the literary work’s reflection in terms of the period of which the writer lived in: the late 18th and early 19th century, specifically during the post-revolutionary era. First, at that said period, Americans were dependant on letters as means of communication, which is depicted through the genre of ‘The Coquette’ was written and structured: epistolary (Graf, 2005, p. 4). Back then, letters were used to gossip, share news, court a lover, and do businesses. Letter writing was seen as a mandatory and important skill for literate people, which was seen as a sign of proper education for people that made them distinct in terms of social hierarchy (p. 14).

Next, in my opinion, due to the fact that Eliza Wharton is a flirtatious woman in the story, the writer tries to satirize the gender roles of women in society in terms of what they should have done to be accepted by following certain norms and pleasing people. Since the work was written a decade after the American revolution, gender roles were pretty strict since households were seen as a source of stability and order (Krawczynski, 2003, p. 323), and because the country was still figuring out its identity as a new nation, the people found it difficult separating freedom from tradition (Osborne & Akatsuka, 2019). As a result, in terms of attitude and contributory in action, most women remained mostly submissive, for they were stereotypically needed for a fixed role as caretakers of households. Though the American revolution happened, there was no real social revolution to women in particular.

To conclude this essay, women’s roles are more than stereotypical ones: they are not meant to be confined of their awareness and ideas in a household, and they can also be as sophisticated and educated as men when it comes to writing. Hannah Webster Foster had a great sense of purpose: through her work entitled ‘The Coquette’ as an outlet of entertainment and ideas, she tried to offer help and empower women by satirizing gender roles. Personally, choosing Hannah Foster is a good opportunity to learn more about her life and what her literary works truly reflect.

Bibliography

1. Brooks, R. B. (2013, February 21). The Roles of Women in the Revolutionary War. Retrieved October 15, 2019, from History of Massachusetts: https://historyofmassachusetts.org/the-roles-of-women-in-the-revolutionary-war/
2. Debra Michals, P. (2015). Judith Sargent Murray (1751-1820). Retrieved October 13, 2019, from National Women’s History Museum: https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/judith-sargent-murray
3. Elizabeth Whitman – The Mysterious Coquette of 1788. (2019). Retrieved October 18, 2019, from New England Historical Society: http://www.newenglandhistoricalsociety.com/elizabeth-whitman-mysterious-coquette-1788/ (Original work published in 2015)
4. Foster, Hannah Webster. (n.d.). Retrieved October 18, 2019, from Encylopedia.com: https://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/news-wires-white-papers-and-books/foster-hannah-webster
5. Freibert, L. M. (n.d.). Hannah Webster Foster (1758-1840). Retrieved October 13, 2019, from Cengage Learning: http://college.cengage.com/english/lauter/heath/4e/students/author_pages/eighteenth/foster_ha.html
6. Graf, E. M. (2005). The Historical Significance and Function of Letters in Shaping American Identity, 1790-1865. Columbus: The Ohio State University. Retrieved October 14, 2019, from https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/339/thesis.pdf
7. Krawczynski, K. (2003). The American Revolution, 1763-1789 (History in Dispute Volume 12). Thomson Gale. Retrieved October 18, 2019, from https://1.cdn.edl.io/ll7MogYMuRD3DHlKIYq6mrn0pxQx6R6BSgkHjcrL4ONolocW.pdf
8. Marchione, W. P. (n.d.). Hannah Foster: Brighton’s Pioneer Novelist. Retrieved October 13, 2019, from Brighton Allston Historical Society: http://www.bahistory.org/HistoryFoster.html
9. Mercy Otis Warren. (n.d.). Retrieved October 18, 2019, from American Battlefield Trust: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/mercy-otis-warren
10. Mercy Otis Warren. (2019, October 15). Retrieved October 13, 2019, from Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mercy-Otis-Warren (Original work published in1999, July 2)
11. Michals, D. (2015). Judith Sargent Murray. Retrieved October 18, 2019, from National Women’s History Museum: https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/judith-sargent-murray
12. Moran, C. K. (2014, April 3). The Coquette: Freedom, Flirting, and Falling from Virtue. Retrieved October 14, 2019, from The Toast: http://the-toast.net/2014/04/03/the-coquette/
13. Osborne, K., & Akatsuka, N. A. (2019, October 18). The Coquette Essay Questions. Retrieved October 13, 2019, from GradeSaver: https://www.gradesaver.com/the-coquette/study-guide/essay-questions (Original work published in 2015, March 17)
14. Rubin, J. S., & Casper, S. E. (2013). The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Cultural and Intellectual History. New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 12, 2019, from https://books.google.co.id/books?id=_lMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA431&lpg=PA431&dq=Harriet+Vaughan+Cheney+and+Eliza+Lanesford+Cushing+hannah&source=bl&ots=JPKZerbFvj&sig=ACfU3U2R5jYxrRo2SwkNqOo4QOeIM03xuw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiE-NqLr5nlAhWCjeYKHRIVBgUQ6AEwB3oECAkQAQ
15. Van Spanckeren, K. (1994). Outline of American Literature. The United States Department of State.Retrieved October 10, 2019

Parliament and the British king imposed a multitude of taxes on the colonists during the mid to late 1700s in order to raise the revenue needed to pay off their debt from the French and Indian War. The colonists held various forms of protests and boycotts on the newly imposed taxes, such as The Boston Tea Party where they dumped all the British tea into the Boston harbor. Eventually, the Declaration of Independence was created in 1776 and concluded that the colonists must go to war with Britain in order to achieve their own independence. They fought in a long and drawn-out war in which they defeated the British in 1783. After signing the Treaty of Paris, America finally had declared its independence from Britain. Although now independent, the American Revolution sparked a great change in American society, which created several adjustments to the current colonial conditions. The existing standards of women were subtly improving in society but hopeful wishes of peace with Native American tribes were disregarded due to the overwhelming ideals of the predominantly white male society. Also, even though our government changed over from the British monarchy to a democracy, the Articles of Confederation were too unsteady and fruitless to have any sort of real control or impact over their new nation and thus had a strong need for a central Federal government. With our nation still fresh, the American Revolution caused these multitudes of effects to the colonial society.

As the American culture was beginning to take shape, women took on a more prominent role around the home, which gave them more of a purpose in colonial society. In the woodcut of a Patriot woman from 1779, a woman is holding a musket with a fort and flag in the background. This demonstrates how some women took part in the American Revolution, such as Molly Pitcher, and redefined the traditional roles of women (Doc 1). This later introduced the new idea of Republican motherhood is brought forth. Although the role is minuscule, women were now given a purpose as to raising their children into becoming Patriots. This was a step up from the standard role that women had, giving them a sense of place in the community. Due to these increasing roles, women felt the urge to begin advocating for future rights expanding beyond the domestic sphere that encapsulated them. Molly Wallace states in her valedictory address that women are compelled to stay the domestic life by nature and social customs and should use public speaking as a way to improve the quality of female oratory. This was intended for both women and men of this era to hear as it encouraged women to break out of the domestic sphere as well and helped men understand the desire for women to learn and grow (Doc7). The later educational reform is also foreshadowed in the sense for there is a rise of discussion for future educational opportunities offered to women. The opportunities for women were slowly increasing after the American Revolution, which was a big step in the direction for equal rights.

Even though women were slowly becoming more accepted into society, the Native Americans were continuously neglected with their hopes of peace between the two nations shot downtime and time again. In the speech at the Confederate Council, proposed by the United Indian Nations in 1786, it states how disappointed the Indians were with the fact that they were not included in the creation of peace between Britain and America. The United Indian Nation directed this speech towards the American government as they failed to recognize the everlasting friendship that the Native Americans craved (Doc 3). There was no mention of the Native Americans in the Treaty of Paris, and thus caused the Native Americans to feel neglected and upset. All the Native Americans wanted was peace between the two nations, especially after helping them defeat the British in the American Revolution. In the message from the Chickasaw Chiefs, it expresses their desire for a new friendship between Chickasaw and the Americans. This shows how they hoped that since the war was over, the end of hostility would start a civil relationship between them and the Americans (Doc 2). That hope was clearly disregarded through a multitude of acts done by the Americans; one being the Battle of Fallen Timbers. After the Native Americans lost the Battle of Fallen Timbers to the Americans, much of their land was taken from them in the signing of the Treaty of Greenville and they were forced to relocate up north. This pushed the Native Americans further away from peace with the Americans as they not only slaughtered at the battle, but they were forced out of their land as well. With the American Revolution over, the Native Americans faced even more neglect than ever before.

Under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government lacked the needed authority to support the new nation. The letter from Abigail Adams explains the amount of chaos surrounding the post-revolutionary era. The letter was intended for Thomas Jefferson in hopes that he would recognize the serious civil unrest in some areas throughout the country (Doc 4). As bandits roamed the streets, and the prominent Shay’s Rebellion that was a series of violent protests from farmers who were angered by taxes, it became obvious that the change was needed. The empowered nation now pushed for ratification. James Madison in The Federalist, number 51, pushes for the government to have the power to keep people under control. This showed how Madison supported ratification and how there was a concern about the government having too little power (Doc 6). Since the Articles of Confederation wasn’t doing a great job in running the country, the Constitution was drafted in order to help make order of the nation. The Constitution was a series of basic laws and principles that the nation would follow in order to maintain a working civilization. It also allowed for representation based upon the population in the House of Representatives, as well as equal representation per state in the Senate. For sure, the creation of the Constitution caused a dramatic shift in setting up the new country.

Overall, the American Revolution brought out a change to American society in the following years. Women were slowly gaining more of a prominent role in society which soon lead to things such as the women’s rights movement in the 1820’s. However, the Native Americans continued to suffer under the wrath of America. The hatred towards the Native Americans grew until they were forced out of their land through the Trail of Tears in 1831. But despite all of that, the United States government was finally starting to come together in order to sustain a whole country. Documents such as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights helped stregthen the government and allowed the nation to develop into a proper civilization. Without a doubt, the American Revolution had deeply affected American society and would be forever changed.

Preceding the American Revolution, there was a long and strong create to the war. In case we see this come up we will see the strain filling in just as most of the 5 things that you necessity for a productive change. The things that you prerequisite for a productive change are, close by uprisings realized by disillusionment, nonconformist top of the line, pivotal motivations, state crises, and world setting. A bit of the things are exhibited clearly, at any rate only one out of every odd one of them were set up before the war began. An instance of this is the world setting.

Something that built up the irritated. This was mass disillusionments inciting the close by uprising. There was starting a fight that broke out in Boston and butchered 5 pilgrims and this was known as the Boston Massacre. There was also an obligation on tea and this was what incited the Boston Tea Party. The Boston Tea Party was an OK proportion of pilgrims assuming the presence of Mohawk Indians and a short time later taking tea off a British trade convey while hurling most of the tea into the ocean. These close by uprisings were by and large realized by the charges of the items that the Americans purchased. This was similarly what lead to a part of the interests of these laws on costs in any case the fierceness didn’t stop then as the war of the American Revolution still happened.

The dissident elites of the American change involved various people at any rate there was one person that was the whole free thinker world class. This was Benjamin Franklin. He was incredibly notable in America and England. In any case, he maintained America in the Revolution and this was an incredibly huge event that was going on. The rest of the rule free thinker elites contained John Adams, George Washington, and John Dickinson. George Washington was the general of the essential power American military and made normal people who volunteered to serve their country considerably more prevailing than the universes most feared military. Without Washington, everything could have turned out seriously. Washington had the alternative to bring people from nothing into a military that startled away the British. John Adams and John Hancock were in like manner noteworthy maverick elites. John Hancock was incredibly wealthy and he empowered the military to create and get the advantages they required by giving a great deal of time and money to the military. John Adams was a for the most part magnificent pioneer and had a lot of understanding. He counseled with the British people making a game plan that over the long haul completed the American Revolution and gave America the open door that it is known for nowadays.

Not solely were the local uprisings conveying motivation to the people that were joining the military and fighting for self-rule. Various people made practically influential articles. A couple of examples of this were books. If we look at the past of Thomas Paine we can see that he formed various books in any case he stayed in contact with one piece of composing explicitly. This was called Common Sense. This was made from the language out of someone who was a patriot in any case he was genuinely not a protester tip top. This suggested he talked and composed to such an extent that the run of the mill people of the states could see more than the way in which the protester elites created. This bit of training was made to awaken people of the states to join the military forces and to move the people that were by then in the military. This piece was created during the events when people were doing combating to stay alive all through the winter. Winter was essentially deadly to a bit of the homesteaders as most of the animals would pass on and sustenance would miss the mark. Right when for all intents and purposes all desire was lost this was the piece that the people would examine to the officials. It advised them that it was so basic to fight for self-governance and this was what made the Americans keep doing combating for their country despite during the brutal events. This was only one of the coupling together motivations that helped the people make the change productive.

Britain was short of money in perspective on the past wars before the American change. There was a war that Britain spent over £70,000,000 to ensure the settlements of America. This was the French and Indian war. This is the explanation Britain started to present costs at the outset times of the American Revolution. This was a noteworthy crisis for the English domain. That just as America was at the point where they were worn out on the ruler overseeing them in a way where they didn’t have the foggiest thought regarding most of their laws. America contradicting the ruler simply built up Britain’s crisis and gave the Americans a touch of a touch of elbowroom while the British were falling behind in light of the fact that they expected to focus on their crises.

During the French and Indian War, the French were losing a huge amount of locales and after that the British would take the district that the French would lose. This made the French have hatred against the British. Since both the Americans and French were upset at the British they brought together and started to fight against the British in the later periods of the Revolution. Not only did the British not have accomplices anyway America did and this tremendously helped America win in the insurrection.

The American Revolution was a war that was started when the British constrained charges at any rate these obligations opened the Americans eyes to the manner in which that they required opportunity for themselves. There were 5 guideline things they did to make this a compelling bombshell and the Revolution turned out productive. All around The American Revolution is an unprecedented instance of an extraordinary revolt and it shows what you need to make a successful miracle.

American Revolution had taken place between the years 1775 to 1783 in demand of full independence of American colonists from the shackles of Britain by American patriots. Many political and social abuses from the part of British government finally led to this revolution as a result of which America got their freedom after the revolutionary war. It has been noticed that many American colonists supported the British and sided with them when the war started. This implies that the decision of revolution was supported by some while it was not recommended by some of the inhabitants of America at that time. The patriots were inspired by both republicanism and liberalism as political philosophies while battling with their opponents. This is so because these two philosophical outlooks justified their cause that states the value of equality without marginalizing anyone on any ground. Thus, abolition of monarchy had been justified because of its autocratic and aristocratic nature of ruling common people.

As an American colonist, I prefer to be in the side of those patriots who fought for American independence and not in support of the loyalists. This is not only because the rule of a monarch rejects the claim of equal opportunity of common people but also because the British government, at that time, were responsible for many political chaotic situation that needed to be taken seriously. On the other hand, being an American colonist, it seems that an independent democratic state is capable of providing more for the people of America than an autocratic, self serving monarchic government. Moreover, a new and independent government was highly needed in order to establish notions of individual rights, natural rights, property rights and more.

After reading articles like ‘Thoughts On Government’, ‘The Declaration Of Independence’ and articles written by Thomas Paine, I believe that each of them are persuasive in their own way and each of them supports the cause of American revolution from their stand points. However, I believe that Thomas Jefferson’s ‘The Declaration Of Independence’ is the most persuasive in its arguments in the support of American revolution of 1776. As per the article, human beings are born equal and thus any government needs to support this claim. Equality can only be given by the citizens by coming up with policies that reject discrimination and give liberty to live equally. On the other hand, it has also been stated that revolutionary steps against the government should not be taken for any trivial cause whereas abomination of natural rights cannot be ignored by anyone. Thus, the article states that it is the utmost duty of colonists of America to overthrow British government that is unable to protect equal rights of all. On the other hand, it has been mentioned that George III, king of Britain, was involved in 27 abuses and also was responsible for forcing tax to be paid by the colonists. Thus, the colonists decided to revolt only after trying to sort out the matter by demanding from the government to make peace with them.

So, I think that this article persuades me the most as this has multiple rational arguments in favor of American Revolution.

When looking back at the American Revolution most history books between the grades of 1st-12th majority public schools, have it written that the British were unfair and unjust in their ways with how they treated/ handled the colonies. After taking this particular course on American history it’s come to my attention that it may not have been the case and the British were completely in their rights and standings politically. Also, that we as a colony were being like children when they don’t get their way and threw a quite a few temper tantrums as we see though out the course of the revolution.

It’s important to understand history with accuracy and learn from those instances for a better future. Choosing to blatantly disregard what might actually be true and correct will only make the future of whatever institution those histories are founded on a mess and more than likely corrupt. So, taking a step back and taking a deeper look at the American revolution and seeing what was actually going on might show prideful/ ego driven America that we were actually in the wrong (pause for shock and ah from Americans).

For most red, white and “true” Americans defacing the revolution may come off as an insult to the founding fathers and “what we stand for” because of course they were the best thing to happen to the world since the wheel! The problem is that most people don’t understand that we weren’t being mistreated, taxes weren’t truly that bad, a good chuck of people didn’t even want this to happen, and the intolerable act was completely lawful. Also, the Boston massacre was overly exaggerated and the only reason they didn’t want them to move west was because they just finished the French and Indian war and didn’t want another one to try and pay off.

Firstly, I’d like say that the taxes such as the stamp act were completely legal and justified. The reason behind their taxing in the first place was because of the French and Indian war, they needed a way to make money to pay for the war and the only way to do it is through taxes we do that even today. The Stamp Act was to directly raise money in the colonies and the taxes weren’t even that high. “Based on notions of fairness in taxation at the time, stamp duties were an appropriate and widespread form of revenue exaction […] The attraction of stamp duty as a revenue-raising measure to the state, compared to other forms of taxation’. That’s not including other taxes such as land taxing in Britain or slave tax in America.

Not to say that the way it was implemented was right seeing as the colonies had other taxes within their system already. The British parliament didn’t take into consideration on integrating the stamp act into the already existing system they just kind of threw it in there but still they had the right in doing so “One factor which was not taken into account in deciding what form an imperial tax should take, which is also a neglected area in the historiography of the Stamp Act crisis, is the extent to which the colonial assemblies imposed other forms of taxes, often with great ingenuity. It seems that the British government failed to consider adequately the nature of the other taxes in place or had been previously imposed in the individual colonies”.

With the complete stationing of the British troops in the colonies I can see why that may make them a bit nervous but I mean we kind of do the same thing now with all of our military stations all over the world. With them being based through the colonies it insured that the tax would be implemented, seeing as Britain still owned America they had every single right to do so but as we all know that didn’t take well and that leads me to my next point of the Boston massacre.

The thing about the Boston massacre is that it really wasn’t even a massacre at all is was an over exaggeration and eventually used as propaganda. What started out as throwing snowballs between the Bostonians and the British troops turned to an armed standoff and then left five dead and many injured. If not antagonized or had rock filled snowballs thrown at them the instance wouldn’t have happened. “Soon afterward, on the night of March 5, 1770, a file of regulars, provoked beyond endurance, shot into a crowd of their tormentors, slaying five and injuring others. The tragedy was purely an affair of the moment, but the Whig chieftains, quick-wittedly capitalizing on the propaganda possibilities, at once labeled it the ‘Boston Massacre and acclaimed the fallen-whose very names were unfamiliar to most of the townsfolk- as martyrs to the cause of American liberty. Not all the patriots, however, agreed. Two of the most respected, indeed, John Adams and Josiah Quincy, Jr., acted as legal counsel for the soldiers at their trial and secured their acquittal of the charge of murder”.

After the instance of the Boston massacre America only saw the British as a bad parent and aren’t for their interests at all. So began the down fall of the British control over the colonies and where we begin out temper tantrums as the young group of colonies we were. We then see where we take the biggest stab at Britain and where they begin to implement their correct powers even more so to regain control of what is rightfully theirs. Which will transition us to look at the most notable and memorable part of the revolution the Boston Tea Party and the Intolerable act where I’m sure everyone knows what’s happened by this point.

On to the main event of the Boston Tea party and Intolerable act, the basic run down which I hope a good majority of Americans will know by now. The Boston tea party was one of the biggest and notable forms of protest through the revolution, this protest arose from the towns people of Boston to show their revolt to the tea tax which was really to lower the cost on tea trade. The major ports of Boston were flooded with angry colonists and protestors. Once the tea shipment had arrived a group of colonists dressed as Indians, boarded 3-4 ships, and threw over 300 containers of tea into the harbor. That cost of the tea to the trading company that Britain had to pay back was £10,000 and that’s over $4,000,000 in damages by today’s standards. So, you can only imagine what would take place next with British parliament, that’s right the Intolerable Act.

Now the only reason the Intolerable Act was written and implemented was because one: obviously because of the damages and obstruction of property that the colonists caused to the Indian tea company and Britain and two it was a form of punishment for Massachusetts specifically Boston because that’s where this all happened. So, this punishment included shutting down the ports in Boston to all trades till damages were payed for, which in turn severally changed the charter and it then started to rally the colonies together. “The Intolerable Acts, passed in retaliation for the Boston Tea Party, permanently deprived the entire province of cherished democratic privileges and closed the port of Boston to seaborne commerce until the East India Company should be reimbursed and the King be otherwise convinced that the Bostonians henceforth would be law-abiding. Parliament further took away from the Whig-controlled town meetings the right of choosing juries and gave it to the sheriffs, who were creatures of the Crown- appointed Governor; and, to make assurance doubly sure, it provided that anyone accused of murder while quelling an outbreak might be tried in another colony or in England”.

The Intolerable Act was in no way shape or form outrageous of the British parliament it was within reason for the most part except for maybe completely shutting off all the trade and ports that may have been a bit much. Other than that, the colonists had no right to obstruct property, the riots were out of hand and these “liberties” they’re speaking of they’ve had them majority of the time the only difference now is that they’re tightening thier grip on laws and regulations and trying to prevent further corruption like you would with an out of control child such as we were at this point.

“Liberté, égalité, fraternité” – These were the words spoken by Maximilien Robespierre in December of 1790, which gave the French people hope. On July 14, 1789, the Bastille was invaded. The French Revolution had begun. Many reasons led to this revolution. Seven reasons include the American Revolution and the Seven Years’ War, weather calamities, ideas of enlightenment, the unfair estates system, absolutism, the rising bourgeoisie, and the bad reign of Louis XVI.

Most historians agree that the French Revolution started in 1789 and ended in 1799. The American Revolution in 1775 was when people fought for their independence from Great Britain. The French helped the revolutionaries against Britain because Great Britain was France’s rival at the time. However, the revolution cost France a significant amount of money, and “significant” is understating it. France funded the revolution with an astonishing 1.3 billion livres, equivalent to about 1.7 billion dollars. After the American Revolution, which France had helped and funded, France was in a humongous amount of debt. America was not able to pay France back. The Seven Years’ War, also known as the French and Indian War) also added to France’s debts, when the French were fighting against the British about territorial claims in Northern America. They also lost a great amount of money. They lost land in Canada and Louisiana in the Treaty of Paris. Despite the financial crisis the nation was facing, The nobility was still living lavishly, while the common people were poor, starving from the bread shortage, and were susceptible to disease. A very unfair unequal wealth distribution sparked the start of a fiery revolution that was difficult to quench. Of course, there was more than one reason why a revolution started.

The weather in France took an unfortunate turn in 1788 when one of the most significant hail storms hit the country. The storm had destroyed many of the fields. This led to a widespread bread shortage in the country. In 1775, there was also a massive bread shortage. The 1788 bread shortage, however, was only one of many other causes for the blood revolution alongside many other reasons for why the French Revolution started. In 1770 there was widespread freezing of crops in the North Atlantic, the little ice age being a probable cause. The little ice age was a period of time when temperatures dropped by 0.6 degrees Celsius around the northern hemisphere. In 1783, the Laki volcano erupted, letting out 120 million tons of sulfur dioxide. Sulfur dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means it traps heat in the atmosphere. The eruption also meant a lot of ash. The ash blocked the sun, which made the temperatures plummet. The 1788 bread shortages meant that France was in a very bad situation economically, politically, and ethically. A rapidly growing population, alongside bad weather in 1788, had caused food (mostly bread) shortages all around France. The bread was the staple food for many people across France at the time. With the high prices and little bread, people started to revolt. People resorted to violence and theft for grain all over the country. The king, who didn’t know what to do, called the three estates together to solve the financial crisis France was in. The Estates General, however, led to an even worse state of affairs, it made the third estate feel worse by proposing to raise taxes. France was in financial ruin, and people were starving. A rumor started that Marie Antoinette was hoarding grain at the palace. So, on October 5, 1789, women gathered up at the Palace of Versailles and started the Women’s March. They stole weapons and marched at the Palace of Versailles. They demanded that the king and his family live in Paris instead of Versailles. So, the king and his family did move to Versailles, in the Tuileries Palace. But, the king would later try to escape in 1791, where he would be caught and accused of treason, then later executed by the guillotine on January 21, 1793.

Also, there was the ideology of the Enlightenment, which opposed the traditional system of an absolute monarch with ideas of democracy, individual freedoms, and liberties. Enlightenment philosophers like Denis Diderot, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Guillaume-Thomas Raynal helped spread the ideas of the Enlightenment and encouraged the common people to fight for individual rights and liberty. These types of ideas were radical at the time, and at a time with poor, hungry people, a revolution was just around the corner. On the other hand, the nobility did not like the ideas, because they would lose all their special privileges if the ideas came to fruition.

On May 5, 1789, King Louis XVI called the Estates General to solve France’s financial problems. The Estates General was a meeting between the three Estates, which included the clergy, the nobility, and the commoners. He tried to raise taxes (which only applied to the third estate), but of course, it would not work. The common people were not happy about it though. They made up about 98% of France’s population, yet the clergy and nobility could outvote them. The church and nobility were excluded from paying taxes, while the commoners were paying high taxes. The third estate (the common people) wanted one vote for every person, while the clergy and nobility, wanting to keep their privileges, obviously opposed it. And so the first and second estates won. After that, on June 13, 1789, the third estate broke apart and made the National Assembly. On September 3, 1791, the National Assembly wrote the Constitution of 1791, which established a constitutional monarchy. It was very unfair for the third estate (the commoners) because they made up most of the population, yet the first and second estates owned a relatively large amount of land and goods in the country. If you look at statistics about the population in France during the time, you’ll see that the clergy makes up 0.5% of the population, the nobility 1.5%, and the common people 98%. But, the church owned 10% of the land, the nobility owned 25%, and the common people 65%, which is relatively high for the clergy and nobility. The taxes were also burdened by the third estate, with the third estate paying all the taxes, sometimes to the first and second estates themselves, while the clergy and nobility paid no tax at all whatsoever. As you can see, this sparked the start of a revolution even more.

Absolutism is, in simple terms, like an absolute monarchy, when all power to decide what happens falls to one person. Before the French Revolution, France had an absolute monarchy, with King Louis XVI being the absolute monarch. He had all the power in France to do whatever he wanted, like he said “I am the state.” People wanted to distribute power throughout the people. Democracy is what the French people wanted. The want for equality alongside the enlightenment, fueled a start for revolution.

The bourgeoisie was also one of the reasons for the French Revolution. The bourgeoisie was kind of like the middle class in today’s society, between very rich and very poor. They were the richer people of the third estate. They got wealth by working in a profession, while the nobility inherited their wealth and got tax money from the third estate. The bourgeoisie were the more favorable people of the third estate. The bourgeoisie did not like the first and second estates’ special privileges and positions. They didn’t want to have to pay taxes to the third and second estates. They wanted equal ground, in terms of politics, with the other two estates. They thought it was unfair for them to have their political status.

King Louis XVI was thought to be a terrible king. He was hated by his people for not being “fit to be a king”. He failed to deal with serious matters. He was considered immature, and he usually did leisurely things, which made the public hate him more. He summoned the Estates General, in which he proposed to raise taxes. And, as you know, only the common people were paying taxes. He also fired the popular financial advisor, Jacques Necker. Years of public outcry finally culminated in the Bastille invasion on July 14, 1789. During the French Revolutionary Wars, other European powers sought to take over France to stop the spread of upheavals in Europe. King Louis XVI wanted France to lose against these powers in order to regain his own power. He would be the last king of France. The revolution would completely change the political dynamics of France after it ended.

On July 14, 1789, the Bastille Fortress, a state prison used by the government to hold important people charged with severe crimes, was invaded by a furious mob of people. The Fortress represented the Bourbon Monarchy, and the French people hated it. Seven prisoners were freed. Eight guards were killed, and gunpowder and weapons were stolen. The Bastille was soon dismantled after, and its stones were kept as souvenirs or used in buildings. This event marked the start of the French Revolution. It had begun.

Before the French Revolution, the common people were oppressed and were looking for a better type of government. Because of the weather conditions, ideas of enlightenment, the unfair estates system, the American Revolution and the Seven Years’ War, absolutism, the rising bourgeoisie, the unfair balance between the three estates, the financial crisis in France, the bread shortage, and the bad reign of Louis XVI, the French Revolution came to be. The French Revolution radically changed the lives of the French people for the better.

Introduction

The French revolution might have only lasted a decade 1789-1899. However, its impact was unfathomable. It could be argued that it was the single seed that grew into a modern democracy. It questioned how the old world was governed by challenging the feudal system of France, the power of the church, and the monarchy (Anirudh 2018). The French revolution was bloody- about forty thousand lives were lost including King Louis XVI and his Queen Marie-Antoinette (‘French Revolution | Causes, Facts, & Summary’ 2019). It empowered individuals to unite and questioned the role of the monarchy and the church. It was always assumed in those times that the king had a divine right to rule. This divine right was believed to have been bestowed upon the monarch by God (‘The Seven Years War Begins’ 2010). Defying the monarch was in its essence defying God (Berdine 2019). Although the American revolution happened before the French Revolution, it was not as impactful (‘A Timeline of The American Revolution From 1763 – 1787’ 2016). It occurred so far away that Europe did not really feel its effect. This essay aims to address the various reasons that resulted in the French revolution, such as the Ancien Régime, the enlightenment, food shortage, the impact of previous wars, and the wrong decisions of an incapable King. The essay will argue that social inequality was the most significant cause of the Revolution (Goodwin and Popkin 2019).

During the 17th and 18th centuries, France just like many European countries were ruled by a monarch with absolute power. Criticizing the monarch was considered treason and anyone who did criticize the king would be imprisoned without trial. The Bastille was one of the most important prisons in France in this period (Goodwin and Popkin 2019). It was a symbol of the monarchy’s power. Louis XVI (1754-1793) was the king during the French revolution. He married the Austrian Marie Antoinette in 1770. She was the daughter of the emperor and empress of Austria. He became king after succeeding his grandfather King Louis XV (Schultz 2019).

The seven-year war and French involvement during the American revolution were the early events that led to the French revolution (Goodwin and Popkin 2019). The French lost most of their land in the new world to the British. The British borrowed lots of money to win the war. At the end of the war, Britain was the dominant superpower. When the naïve King Louis inherited the throne, he was still immature, austere in manners, lacking in self-confidence due to a physical defect, and much more, he lacked interest in his subjects and was more focused on foreign policies. This blinded his sight on the issues developing in his own country. King Louis lacked the foresight to make decisions to combat the influence brewing in the court factions, or the necessary supports needed to reform the ministers. Most historians agree that he was a character who had inadequate strength and was, in consequence, a bad king.

It could be argued King Louis XVI’s involvement in the American Revolution helped his citizens realize the similarity in their conditions of living and the now independent USA, although the complexity isn’t the same (Marks 2018) (‘BBC – History – King Louis XVI’ 2014). Losing the seven-year war against the British might have short-sighted the King. He would have realized that unequal rights, royal absolutism, and economic struggles were catalysts for the American revolution and connected these to the situation of his country (Llewellyn and Thompson 2018). Helping the colonies resulted in the gradual bankruptcy of France. This bankruptcy fueled the crisis and led to an uproar followed by protests which caused the French people to lose faith in the King. (Bloy 2018), (‘French Revolution | Causes, Facts, & Summary’ 2019). Compared to the American Revolution, the French Revolution was more complex, more violent, and far more radical in its attempt to reconstruct both a new political and a new social order (feudal system).

In the late reign of King Louis, the economy was hanging by a thread. France was the most populous country in Europe. France was a society stuck in an archaic world. It had a population of approximately 27 million dived into three groups called the estates. In 1789 the king summoned the estates-general through desperation. This form of governance was in place since the middle ages. The first estate, also referred to as the clergy, was made up of about 130,000 individuals. (Bloy 2018), There were two types of clergies. The 1st one, the higher clergy, stemmed from the aristocratic families and as a result, had more in common with the nobility and they were exempted from paying tax. The 2nd clergy was made up of parish priests who mostly came from the third estates and chose to live a humble life for God, therefore, most of them were more sympathetic towards the commoners (‘French Revolution | Causes, Facts, & Summary’ 2019). The second estates were the nobilities (knights and some royals) and the third estate (commoners) were made up of the rest of the population. 98% of the population were in the third estate however one vote was given to each estate. The third estate declared itself the sovereign national assembly because they realized they could not properly represent all the people they needed to represent If each estate only got one vote (‘French Revolution | Causes, Facts, & Summary’ 2019). The members took the tennis court oath, swearing not to disperse until a new constitution had been made. Their decisions stimulated the French public. They began to fear the king will use the royal military to attack them. This led to the break-in of the Bastille prison. It was filled with prisoners who spoke against the Royals. The prison had a large supply of ammunition and gunpowder which the peasants required to protect themselves. The declaration of rights of men was proclaimed three weeks after: ‘All men are created and born equal.’

The Enlightenment was a 17th/18th century intellectual and social movement emphasizing reason, humanism, religious tolerance, skepticism toward established authority, democracy, and other ”modern” themes. Enlightenment thinkers encouraged challenging traditional religious and political institutions. It was one of the leading causes of the French revolution. Not all of the people in the third estate were poor. There was a group of people called the bourgeoisie. They were moderately rich men and women who made their money by being entrepreneurs. They wanted to be on the same pedigree as the other two estates. The bourgeoisie helped spread the publications of the enlightenment thinkers. It began to challenge the dogma of the Catholic church. John Locke, an Enlightenment thinker, said that no king should have absolute power. He believed in a constitutional monarchy, which meant he thought that any ruler should have rules to follow too. He also believed in a social contract: the people give a little of their freedom to their ruler in return for protection and good leadership in general. The French liked these ideas. Baron de Montesquieu believed in a separation of powers into three branches (executive, legislative, and judicial). He said they should hold equal power, so it did not become despotism (tyranny). His ideas were influential in many countries, including America. Voltaire, an Enlightenment writer, thought that people should have the right to free speech and religious freedom, which they did not really have. This idea became an important part of all Enlightenment thinking and many governments. Mary Wollstonecraft and Olympe de Gouges believed in equal rights for everyone, including women. De Gouges, a French woman, was executed for her beliefs (Llewellyn and Thompson 2019).

There were a lot of reasons that led to the French revolution such as social inequality in France due to the estate’s system, the tax burden on the third estate, the rise of the bourgeoisie, ideas put forward by the enlightenment philosophers, the financial crisis caused due to costly Wars (American revolution and the seven war), drastic weather and poor harvests in the preceding years, the rise in the cost of bread, the ineffective leadership of Louis XV and Louis XVI, parliaments successful opposition to reforms as they represented the nobility and the extravagant lifestyle of the French monarchy amidst the suffering of the French public(Schwartz 2019). People tend to take part in things that influence them personally. The French revolution was bound to happen with or without most of these causes. Human beings are naturally wired to seek fulfillment in their lives. This could be observed from the earliest of our ancestors. The inequality among the three estates set a time bomb that only needed a minuscule spark to explode. Most of the catalysts that led to the French revolution could be found in Britain, however, Britain did not have the right sparks needed to cause such an impactful revolution. Other countries in Europe did not have those sparks either but France did. Thus, one of the most influential revolutions in history happened in France.

Revolutionary Mothers

The American Revolution is a war that continues to be the subject of constant discussion by historians and intellectuals of our society. The Founding Fathers is a group that played a critical role during the colonial rebellion that unfolded for nearly two decades, between the years 1765 and 1783. The Founding Mothers, as Carol Berkin will describe them in her book Revolutionary Mothers, too played an essential role during the war and its aftermath that reached beyond keeping their families together and their domestic roles. Berkin focuses on women of all stature, from the poor to those in the rural and urban areas, the enslaved and recently freed women; and it looks at their struggles and challenges they had to withstand during the years of war (Klepp). While most of the credit for the successful outcome of the war has consistently gone to men, the role that women played during the war had not been dissected at length in the past. On a positive note, Carol Berkin’s work of literature Revolutionary Mothers offers much-needed enlightenment on this matter. In Revolutionary Mothers, the author, a United States historian, as well as a writer, seeks to provide an enhanced comprehension of the role that women played throughout the ground-breaking war.

Revolutionary Mothers finds Berkin exploring several diverse roles that women from a vast array of cultures, ethnicities, as well as classes, played in the course of the period in which colonial America was struggling to attain its independence from Great Britain. Berkin makes it clear that there is an innumerable sum of forgotten women whose contributions to the cause of the revolutionary war had a noticeable impact on the outcome of the war. Succinctly, numerous women acted as companions, organizers of political campaigns, and caretakers, while some even became soldiers and fought on the battlefield. The women who showed great bravery during the war included both loyalists and patriots, black people, as well as Native Americans.

First off, Berkin notes that in affluent families, women tended to be excused from most production tasks and instead started to carry out undertakings such as “beautification of their homes and genteel upbringing of their daughters” and properly raising their daughters. On top of this, Berkin makes the point that women who lived in rural areas were mainly tasked with the responsibility of bringing forth as many children as possible. This is particularly noteworthy because children assisted in doing different kinds of jobs, like farm work, and overall assisted in ensuring the survival of the family. Also, women were involved in political undertakings in the era under dissection. For instance, patriot women are said to have linked with their husbands with an eye on organizing the initial elective boycotts. As a result, the initial political deed “of American women was to say, ‘No” (p. 13). The roles of several women in this regard are elaborately laid out. Berkin uses various sources in describing the times and giving the viewer a historical perspective of the revolution. She relies a great deal on Elizabeth Ellet’s book “Women of the American Revolution” together with a variety of letters, newspapers, and diaries that provided the accounts of those unsung heroines of the War (Grabow). The author’s account was able to provide a fresh perspective considering that some of the primary sources that she relied on like Elizabeth Ellet’s book were written in the mid-19th Century and the family histories and recollections were still fresh. However, the descriptions provided by Ellet’s work portray the women as playing second fiddle and playing proper roles as helpmates in nurturing their husbands, Berkin, on the other hand, celebrates their role as vital to the Revolution war played in part by heroic efforts of the “Revolution Mothers” (Grabow). The other material used such as the letters were obtained from correspondence between spouses and described their fears during the war.

In each of the chapters, the author offers a comparative perspective of the contrasting roles that women in the 17th century had from those in the 18th century and how the revolution changed them. The former being obedient, submissive, and industrious, while the latter was the same except more modest; however, the revolution changed them to become more rational, assertive, while still being decorous according to as noted by the author, ‘the ideal woman of the eighteenth-century parlor? Obedient, charming, chaste, and modest…” (Berkin). The book demonstrates that the women of the revolution were heroines who were not only assigned to the female roles but played vital roles in the Revolution war. The report will give more analysis of the book and delve deeper into the roles of the Revolutionary Mothers to shed more light on the book that introduced a new twist to the American Revolution. Examples of women whose political contributions are clarified include Abigail Adams, Lucy Knox, Mercy Otis Warren, as well as Martha Washington. Earlier, “in the decade of protest before the Revolution and during the war itself, women entered a sphere largely unfamiliar to them the world of politics” (p. 26). Apart from this, irrespective of whether women, implored men in their respective families to fight in the war, women swiftly realized that they had to fulfill another important responsibility; taking care of the financial matters of the household.

In the second chapter the title “They say it is a tea that caused it” looks at the changed roles of the women which made them more politically active by taking more active and assertive roles in boycotts protesting unfair policies by the British. They asserted their positions by refusing to indulge in some of the British products like tea, and weirdly they were supported since they aligned with the causes that the husbands supported (Berkin). They even raised funds to support the soldiers and became more active when it came to civic duties. The third chapter revolves around the challenges which were a result of the war; food became scarce, and their daily activities are also profoundly paralyzed. Men left for the war and the women are left behind to fend for themselves; they took up roles that were traditionally done by men such as running the farms and other enterprises around the home and at the same time taking care of their families. With the ever-advancing war, the women became prone to dangers of such as rape by the soldiers because of their political stands, their livestock and other properties being confiscated by the regiments, and a host of other challenges. As the war carried on it took the shape of a civil war pitting neighbors against each other, the band of Loyalists versus the Patriots leading to heavy causalities that led to the loss of spouses subsequently leading to financial difficulties.

Chapters four and five focused on camps followers and the general’s wives respectively. The former was the women that did lower level roles in the camps for the soldiers and armies, others even more pivotal roles as nurses and other conjugal roles for their husbands (Barringer). Their lives were difficult dressing in rags; they did not have enough food for them and their children, and it was not uncommon to see them retrieve valuables and pieces of clothing from the dead. On the contrary, the general’s wives were the custodians of the home and played host to their husbands during the winter breaks when there was little to no fighting. They played a critical role in championing their men, raising their morale and those of other soldiers. They were a complete derailment that would offer respite for their spouses away from the war; they could organize balls and parties for the soldiers. Chapters six “A journey a Crosse ye wilderness” and seven titled “The women must hear our words,” focused on loyalist and the native women respectively (Berkin). The former group suffered a great loss for siding with the British even being shunned away, while the latter focuses on their roles siding with the Loyalists which also led to intermarriages (Barringer).

Chapter eight focuses on African-American women both free and those enslaved. Their lives were filled with hardships before the war and became even worse during the Revolution and in the aftermath. Many that had sided with the British and used in their regiments were forced to relocate to urban areas of New York, some surrendering to the British at Cornwallis in the late 18th Century hoping for a better life and some even sailing to Canada.

Generals perceived the majority of “camp followers” as just necessary annoyances except for the wives of top-ranking officers who were primarily tasked with the role of maintaining not only social status but also morale. What is more, a few numbers of women, for instance, Deborah Sampson, decided to disguise themselves as men and went on to fight until they were discovered or usually not until they had sustained an injury. On top of this, other women, for example, Margaret Corbin, assisted in supplying water that was used for cooling the cannons and moved into action in case their husbands ended up being disabled. Indeed, Corbin was given a pension following the conclusion of the war because of the injuries that she sustained, which underscores the fact that she played a very important role in the course of the revolutionary war.

Further, loyalist women usually had no option but to run away from their land and go toward Canada or England where they could safely reside. Numerous loyalist women were surprised to come to the discovery that their property, in fact, even their safety, was not secure anymore. Moreover, some of them soon found out that even being friends with other people would not be helpful in case their husbands were known to be loyalists and in case the

attacking parties were known to be patriots. Notably, by the time the war ended, more than 50,000 loyalist women were forced to make new permanent settlements in Canada. Additionally, the vaster proportion of the Iroquois Six Nations decided to fight with the loyalists since they believed that victory for Great Britain would aid in protecting not only their lands but also their independence. Since women had immense power, they helped in mobilizing their people to fight for the King and, as a result, aided the cause of the British.

As a final point, Berkin believes that black women placed a great deal of emphasis on freedom and attempted to decide on the side of the war that could have advanced their cause best. However, this approach was never effective because neither side of the war, Congress nor the King, afforded them proper treatment and did not promise them freedom for their backing. What is more, African-American women who ran away from the nation came to discover that racism also existed in Canada. Overall, only a trivial sum of blacks fared well during or following the conclusion of the war. After the war ended, women were not perceived as being ‘morally and mentally inferior to men’ anymore owing to the important contributions that they made (p. 151). Indeed, it is even noted that “A well-educated wife…would expand her intellectual horizons in order to nurture her sons” (p. 155), which demonstrates that women went on to overcome several stereotypes that existed before.

Berkin’s book is immensely critical because it sheds light on the effort that women exerted during the American Revolution. As such, just as men are usually given immense credit for the outcome of the revolutionary war, women can now be recognized for the critical part they played thanks to Berkin’s work. She was able to present us all these stories through a lens, not of racial identity, political ideas, social status, not even taking sides, stating who was wrong or evil, or who was right and good. Berkin does a superb job, in my opinion, because she teaches us about our history through the struggles of these women and their families, whose situation was difficult and challenging, and for some, despite their legal status, had just planted a seed for the fight of greater equality for years to come. Overall, the author did an outstanding job by digging into the past to lay bare the lengths that women went to ensure that they did not act as mere watchers but rather as active partners during the American Revolution.

Works Cited

1. Bailyn, Bernard. The ideological origins of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press, 2017.
2. Barringer, Cherry. Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s Impendence by Carol Berkin. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.usd116.org/profdev/ahtc/Reviews/CherylBarringer.htm
3. Berkin, Carol. Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s Independence. Vintage, 2007.
4. Christensen, Peggy. Revolutionary Mothers by Carol Berkin: A Review. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.usd116.org/profdev/ahtc/Reviews/KayGrabow.htm
5. Degler, Carl N. At Odds: Women and the Family in America from the Revolution to the Present. New York: Oxford University Press, 1980.
6. Grabow, Kay. Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for Independence. (2009). Retrieved from http://www.usd116.org/profdev/ahtc/Reviews/KayGrabow.htm
7. Hoffman, Ronald, and Peter J. Albert, eds. Women in the Age of the American Revolution. United States Capitol Historical Society, 1989.
8. Klepp, E. Susan. Book Reviews; Carol Berkin, Revolutionary Mothers: Women in the Struggle for America’s Independence. (2015) Retrieved from https://journals.psu.edu/phj/article/viewFile/59452/59175
9. Middlekauff, Robert. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. Oxford University Press, 2007.