How Revolutionary Was the American Revolution: DBQ Essay

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The beginnings of the American Revolution can find its initial breakthroughs in the French and Indian War of 1754-1760, which also coincided with the Seven Years’ War which ravaged the world. The wars ended with the Peace of Paris on 10th February 1763 and the annexation of French Canada, Spanish Florida, French Caribbean Islands, and trade ports of Africa and India. In the lecture, a focus was taken on exploring the true costs of the war on the Empire and the ways of recovering this debt from the colonies, in particular the American colonies of the eastern seaboard. Additionally, the true wealth of colonies was explored to find discrepancies in their contribution to the war which greatly benefitted them.

Lawrence Henry Gipson’s work outlines the ‘Imperial’ school of thought, showing his sympathetic reasoning for Empire. He outlines the Colony’s initial weak approach to the French and Indian War and the reliance on regulars and lack of support for the troops. Gipson also acknowledges that the French and Indian War removed the reliance of the colonies on the empire for protection from: Native Americans, the French, and the Spanish. Describes the ‘subsequent nine years of fighting’ which ‘destroyed the old equilibrium’ and allowed the colonist a favorable position for freedom and independence. However, Gipson also cites that ‘even before the great war there were those in the province who had begun to view Great Britain as the real enemy’, suggesting that in Massachusetts there was already anti-imperial sentiment. Aforementioned, links together as Boston, Massachusetts was a revolutionary spark in the 1760s throughout the period.

George Bancroft on the other hand was from the Whig school of thought and believed from his writings targeting the 1760s, that American Colonists had a right to freedom of expansion and self-governance independent from the Houses of Parliament. Bancroft explains his grievances on intervention on direct taxes and land control borders of colonies. His detailed description of New York and its bustling free trade sparks his zeal for a whole country dictated by the same means.

From the Sugar Act to the Brink of War

To connect the eve of the revolution to the Declaration of Independence, the lecture included numerous Acts introduced by Parliament to pay debts accumulated in the 7 Years’ War. These include the Sugar Act of 1764, the Stamp Act of 1765, Townshend Duties, and the Currency Act of 1764 to name a few. In addition, the reactions and responses by the colonists were outlined in the form of the Continental Congresses and the unrest experienced in Boston throughout the late 1760 and 1770s. The true motives for independence were now outlined in the works of Samuel Adams’s Circular Letter, and Thomas Paine’s Common Sense.

Jack P. Greene and Richard M. Jellison’s The Currency Act of 1764 explores the colonial reaction and response to the Act. In detail, Greene and Jellison explain how some colonies, like Maryland, were able to adapt by investing in stocks of the Bank and creating a new mode of transaction. Joseph A. Ernst would agree initially as Virginians welcomed the abolishment of currency however acknowledges that just a year after, Virginia would join a movement in favor of repealing the Act. Greene and Jellison also reveal that Delaware did not consider the Currency Act a ‘major grievance’ unlike all the other colonies.

On the other hand, Greene and Jellison do outline that the Currency Act’s ‘psychological effects were especially important’ in terms of the revolutionary movement. The effect that the Act had on the largely agriculturally based colonies was extensive as debt could not be paid and was a large driving force for popular demonstrations in Boston. They point the blame at merchants and crown agents who failed to find agreements with parliament. In addition, they go on to mention that American legislators now could not rely on spokesmen of the colonies to find ‘enlightened solutions to their problems’.

James F. Hrdlicka explains in historiographical terms the steps to revolution. He explains why the revolution did not happen during the imperial crisis of the 1760s on ‘any number of occasions’. Using Pauline Maier’s ‘ideological interpretation’ to explain the gradual intensification was down to real Whig thought of ‘order and restraint’. He also includes Timothy H. Breen’s work to validate how the ‘order and restraint’ wavered into revolution in the ‘ten-year gap between the Stamp Act and the outbreak of fighting’. Breen suggests it was needed to build trust within the fractured colonies and set the foundation of the constitutional assemblies.

The War of Independence, 1776-1783

This week’s lecture focused on the catalyst of war and the major events conflicted within the War of Independence. The division of the colonies into the Patriotic ‘Whigs’ and the Loyalist ‘Tories’ collated the demographics for the two sides with the Whigs centering upon New and Loyalists in the other dominions of the New World. The lecture was broken into three parts: the Declaration of independence and the committee of five; the Northern Campaigns which saw initial success until the battle of Saratoga as well as the intervention from France and Spain; and the Southern Campaign which saw the pinnacle defeat of by a Franco-American force at Yorktown. The War concluded with the Treaty of Paris in which American independence was sealed and hegemony of North America was broken.

The article written by Stephen Conway was especially interesting when in discussed the idea of a ‘Military Europe’, in which militaries across Europe shared ideas and personnel in throughout Europe’s war colleges. In addition, the journal also states that Army employed Hessian mercenaries to fill the ranks. These mercenaries had a mixed relationship with soldiers and were hated by the soldiers of the Continental army who saw them as a foreign force. The continental army also sought support from Europe by employing officers such as Friedrich von Steuben to assist George Washington in Europeanizing their force.

One thing that I found compelling was the use of Native Americans and slaves as auxiliaries of army. According to Colin G. Calloway, ‘The Indian people’ participated in shaping colonial and revolutionary society and in turn the armies of the revolutionary war. Calloway discusses the many Native Americans who had integrated into colonial society and subsequently colonial armies, however the number of such men could not be known due to the Europeanization of their names. Conway cites that ‘about four hundred Iroquois tribesmen accompanied General John Burgoyne’s army’. Initially, European agents pushed for native neutrality but as the war continued, American, Spanish, and French agents began lobbying support amongst the tribes. Ultimately, the war resulted in conflicts between native tribes, especially the Iroquois. It also paved the way for future American colonisation of indigenous lands.

Governing the Nation, 1776-1791

This week’s lecture we covered the development of the United States government from the disorganization caused by independence to the forming of a national federal government. Beginning with the Congressional period in 1776, in which individual states found more autonomy in creating their own bills of rights and constitutions. Due to the disputes over votes and land the Confederation period began in 1781 and unified all states into a single confederation to support the war effort. However, this was a failure as the confederation congress was inferior to individual states leaving it weak in levying revenue and settling disputes. The final Constitutional period in 1789 marks the final stage in American governance and the Federal system we see today.

This week’s article written by John C. Koritansky on Alexander Hamilton’s Philosophy of government and administration was particularly interesting in how it related Maddison and Hamilton’s federalist theory ‘closer to a constitutional monarchy’. Koritansky admits although the United States government is democratic it has had to make an ‘uneasy peace’ with the advantages of having a sole president to pursue ‘progressive reforms’. As well as progressive reforms, the decision on the process of removal of ‘subordinate executive officers’ was not expressed in the Constitution. However, as Koritansky presents the ‘decision of 1789’ allowed for the president’s executive power to include the removal of these subordinate officers and therefore fell into the federalist interpretation. This is particularly evident within the context of the rise of the federalists of 1787-1788, as they realized the necessity of a central government that was powerful enough to protect the individual states and executed federal authority in the removal of corrupted officers. As well as, maintaining peace and order between states which could not have been preserved by the previous Confederation.

Alternatively, the Antifederalists edited by Cecelia M. Kenyon within the introduction remarks that ‘Antifederalists wanted more limitation and checks written into the constitution. This in turn was to prevent the sole president and his party from enforcing ‘constitutional tyranny’ upon the people of the United States. Their worry of Federal control and reduction of inter-state power is what essentially brought about the Bill of Rights to protect individual citizens liberty and rights. Although it must be acknowledged that in The Federalist papers article No.84 discusses the proposal of a bill of rights.

The Vision of Empire: Parliamentary Sovereignty

This week the lecture took us on a pro- viewpoint to understand parliamentary sovereignty that inevitably led to the Revolutionary wars and American independence. In revision of this, we had to understand the ancient Anglo-Saxon unwritten constitution that in turn affected freedoms and liberties throughout the Empire. As well as this, covering the: Magna Carta, the civil wars of 1642-1651 and the Glorious revolution which cemented Parliamentary sovereignty over the monarch. The became the sentiments that inspired American revolutionary thinkers and created the American constitution. In addition, it also allowed us to understand the true motivations of parliament before the revolutionary war in the idea of ‘virtual representation’ and total control over the colonies.

The article George III and the American Revolution written by P. D. G. Thomas was this week reading. It was particularly interesting on its protection of the King George III and the outlining of colonial propaganda during the revolutionary war. He defends the King as he remarks that ‘George III certainly had the objective of restoring the Crown’s power of appointing minister’ but then would simply ‘let them govern’. As read in the Declaration of independence, all the blame of injustice with the colonies is attributed to King George III. However, as Thomas states, ‘To portray the King as a hardliner is evidently misleading’ and that ‘his hopes were centered on a political solution’. He explains the constraints for a monarch within a constitutional monarchy and the George III could not challenge Parliament but only advice. While also acknowledging George’s change to a hardline policy near to the Declaration of Independence as hostilities broke out at Lexington and Concord.

In J. C. D. Clark’s, The Language of Liberty 1660-1832, he tackles the emerging differences in the social dynamics of the North Atlantic. Interestingly he expresses that emergence of Nationalism which he suggests was created by American patriotism during the revolutionary period. He outlines that as ‘ national awareness’ increased through culture, for example phrases like ‘God save the King’ and ‘Rule, Britannia’. Anti- awareness engulfed all social classes within the colonies. The hatred of the royalist culture is evident in the Declaration of Independence which cites ‘The King’ as the sole fabricator of tyranny. In turn, created a ‘matrix from which American revolutionaries chose to fight to escape’. This emergence of nationalistpatriotic propaganda as well as anti-monarchical sentiments in the colonies created the radical revolutionary attitude against King George which is alluded to in Thomas’s work.

The American Revolution as a ‘Social Revolution’?

Our lecture this week was looking at the American revolution as a ‘social revolution’. Identifying the significance of popular rebellion and crowd action in the years leading up to the declaration of independence. Beginning as early as 1765 in the Stamp Act rebellion in which stamp collector for crown were harassed and some houses were burnt down. Progressing into the unrest within Boston which caused: The Liberty Riot of 1768; The King Street Riot of 1770 (Boston Massacre); and the Boston Tea Party of 1773. All of which derived from the ordinary inhabitants of Boston, key figures for popular rebellion throughout the revolutionary period. We also explored the popular participation in government from 1774 onwards. As previous colonial elitist leaders supported the beneficial to protect their assets, poorer ‘new men’ began to make a more formalized institutional role in politics. For instants, Continental Association was created to enforce the boycott of goods and the committees of safety to mobilize local war bands and locally govern.

Merrill Jensen’s The American people and the American Revolution is particularly interesting in its description of the so-called ‘new men’ which filled the leadership vacuum created by opposition to the policy. Some of these ‘new men’ rose to political positions of power from the middle and lower classes which explicitly suggest a popular ‘social revolution’ especially in the period of ‘upheaval between 1774 and 1776’. Additionally, it must be noted that Jensen targets these ‘new men’ on their anti-democratic rhetoric’s. Outlining, that in the Constitutional Convention of 1787, ‘no members of the convention disagreed with the proposition that democracy was the fundamental evil of the times’. These ‘new men’s’ anti-democratic stance within the Constitutional period indicates the need for the Federalist ideologies in guiding a stable government with a fair democracy to achieve order.

Richard B. Morris in his journal Class Struggle and the American Revolution would disagree as he states that ‘The Whig elite began the war, and in the main that same elite was in control at the end’. Contrasting Jensen’s opinion of the ‘new men’ who were from the middle to upper classes. Interestingly, when comparing the French and American revolutions he remarks that ‘leadership in both revolutions was not recruited from the ranks of the failures but rather from the ambitions and successful’.

Women and the American Revolution

This week’s lecture covered Women and the American revolution centering on the subordinate roles played by Patriotic women. One outspoken woman of the time, Abigail Adams wife of John Adams, took an active role in advising her husband on conditions at home. The corresponding letters between the two allude to the fact that elite white women were not passive in asserting their rights outside of the gender sphere. In addition, we understood the role of women in pre- and post-revolutionary period, for example the women’s role as mothers and wives in moderating opinions and behaviors of husbands. Eventually, women in this period did not have suffrage but that did not restrict their political impact. Women participated in large crowd actions in food riots and the boycott of goods making crucial contributions towards the war effort. The spirt of women during the revolutionary war would be significant in achieving rights for women in the 19th and 20th century.

The article Women and the American Revolution in Georgia written by Ben Marsh takes a noteworthy glance on the effects and responses of women on both Patriotic and Whig factions. It is particularly interesting when presenting the women who broke out of the ‘women’s sphere’ during the tough times of the revolution within Georgia. He cites Laleah Johnston and her actions at the siege of Savannah in sending her teenage sons to join the Whig resistance against the Franco-American forces who were bombarding the town. He explains how the ‘conflicts’ between peacetime roles and revolutionary circumstances ‘temporarily altered perceptions of women’s status within society’. Inevitably, giving women a fracture in gender roles that would drive women’s suffrage through the 19th and 20th centuries.

One other feature is the struggle of the continental soldiers’ wives who were made widows in the war. These women, as outlined by Elizabeth Cometti in Women in the American revolution, would take ‘their problem straight to authorities’. Once again evidence of women breaking the gendered ‘sphere’ and speaking up to political officials demanding what was rightfully theirs. Cometti also alludes to the true female patriots of the revolutionary war, for example Deborah Sampson who served in the continental army under the name Robert Shurtleff. Although being the only women to join the army, many women would act as camp followers and support the armies in supply and logistics.

An African American Revolution?

Continuing in our thematic weeks, this week encompassed the question: An African American Revolution? One interesting point is that the slave population actually increased by the end of the revolutionary period from 325,906 in 1760 to 694,207 in 1790. We also understood what the justifications of the era were on slavery, for example: property rights, laws of wars and nations, racism, and religion and the curse of Canaan. Whilst also exploring anti-slavery in the colonies before and after the revolution which was heavily influenced by Quakers and other religious group in the 1740s-50s. Due to the birth of the enlightenment in western Europe an international anti-slavery movement emerged influencing the founding fathers and playing a significant part in the war of independence. Parts of the slave trade and slavery were slowly abolished in the North by 1804, however abolition in the whole country would not be achieved until after the American Civil war in 1865.

This week’s reading, Black Women of the American Revolution covers the rarely reported lives of black women living within American revolution and focuses upon the pro-abolitionist Pennsylvania. Debra L. Newman acknowledges that the Gradual Abolition law of 1780 passed in Pennsylvania ‘made a significant difference in the lives of Afro-Americans even if the material aspects of freedom were worse for some’. The law required that ‘no child born after the passage’ would be a slave’ and also enforced more administration of slaves, a limitation on children to the age of 28 before they achieved freedom. Also providing equal rights to a jury like white people showed a change in liberties caused by the American Revolution and the constitution that accompanied it.

Click Here To Order Now!