How revolutionary was the American Revolution?

[Joony]

What do you guys think? The immediate aftermath of the American Revolution didn't change much. The rich still had all the positions in the government, the poor was not represented at all, the slaves and women didn't have rights to vote. It took several decades for african americans and women to gain rights after many admendments to the constitution.

I'm writing a paper on this topic and I want to see what you guys think. Please provide some imput.

 

[ElFenix]

it wasn't much of a social revolution, if that is what you mean. unless you think of it in terms of the king losing a ton of land. and of course it heavily influenced the first "actual" social revolution

 

[Gyrene]

It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: dtyn
It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

There would be no need for revolution if they lived under the form of government they established.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dtyn
It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

There would be no need for revolution if they lived under the form of government they established.

Yes there would. They revolted because of taxation without representation, the quartering of soliders in colonial homes (and overall oppression by the military), and overseas rule. Under the Confederate, which was what they originally setup, none of those things were addressed, with the exception of taxation, as it was illegal to have taxes.

 

[BaboonGuy]

look up Deglar on google. he wrote an interesting article about the american revolution, basically saying it was different than all others because it was a conservative revolution. meaning, us americans only wanted for things to go back to how they were (during salutary neglect before the french/indian war) instead of wanting real revolutionary change.

 

[LordMaul]

They revolted because of taxation without representation

Come on, don't you know the real story?

"Taxation without representation" was a theme/slogan invented to get people onto the idea of revolution. Many times representatives were sent to Britain for talks, and were always given specific orders to NOT accept representation agreements for the colonies. The small colonies would be crushed under a majority vote...it would be too stupid to accept. So in reality, taxation without representation was just a 'catchy' slogan to remember and didn't really mean anything tangible.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dtyn
It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

There would be no need for revolution if they lived under the form of government they established.

Yes there would. They revolted because of taxation without representation, the quartering of soliders in colonial homes (and overall oppression by the military), and overseas rule. Under the Confederate, which was what they originally setup, none of those things were addressed, with the exception of taxation, as it was illegal to have taxes.

You're missing out one biggie. Freedom of Religion, which was one of the major reasons for the revolt, wasn't it?

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: LordMaul
They revolted because of taxation without representation

Come on, don't you know the real story?

"Taxation without representation" was a theme/slogan invented to get people onto the idea of revolution. Many times representatives were sent to Britain for talks, and were always given specific orders to NOT accept representation agreements for the colonies. The small colonies would be crushed under a majority vote...it would be too stupid to accept. So in reality, taxation without representation was just a 'catchy' slogan to remember and didn't really mean anything tangible.

It fits in with the whole "overseas ruling." The colonists didn't think that King George knew enough about what was going on in the Colonies to adequately rule. They also felt that the appointed governors were there only for title and money, and also didn't know how to run the colonies. Taxation without representation was the catchy phrase used so they didn't have to explain the whole thing. Yes, I do know the real story, thank you.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dtyn
It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

There would be no need for revolution if they lived under the form of government they established.

Yes there would. They revolted because of taxation without representation, the quartering of soliders in colonial homes (and overall oppression by the military), and overseas rule. Under the Confederate, which was what they originally setup, none of those things were addressed, with the exception of taxation, as it was illegal to have taxes.

You're missing out one biggie. Freedom of Religion, which was one of the major reasons for the revolt, wasn't it?

Welcome to 1620-21 when the Puritans migrated over here. Freedom of Religion was in no way related to the Revolution.

 

[digitalsm]

Hmmm History to 1876?

I wouldnt say the poor werent represented, they WERE. Women and blacks did not though.

It was revolutionary though. No other country before the US tried to setup a system of government like the americans setup. While it wasnt a perfect system, it was the best in the world and was years ahead of its time. Yes the American Revolution was revolutionary. It might not have been revolutionary, and the ideas had been around before, but America was the first to put it all together, and it changed the world.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Hmmm History to 1876?

I wouldnt say the poor werent represented, they WERE.

Wrong. You had to be a white, male, LAND OWNER, to vote up until the late 1800s. Try being poor and owning land.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dtyn
It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

There would be no need for revolution if they lived under the form of government they established.

Yes there would. They revolted because of taxation without representation, the quartering of soliders in colonial homes (and overall oppression by the military), and overseas rule. Under the Confederate, which was what they originally setup, none of those things were addressed, with the exception of taxation, as it was illegal to have taxes.

The Confederated Congress could not tax. The states could. You just cant count the Articles of Confederation. The revolution lead to the eventual 1787 Constitution.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dtyn
It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

There would be no need for revolution if they lived under the form of government they established.

Yes there would. They revolted because of taxation without representation, the quartering of soliders in colonial homes (and overall oppression by the military), and overseas rule. Under the Confederate, which was what they originally setup, none of those things were addressed, with the exception of taxation, as it was illegal to have taxes.

The Confederated Congress could not tax. The states could. You just cant count the Articles of Confederation. The revolution lead to the eventual 1787 Constitution.

Which still didn't address the issues of quartering soldiers, or how the American people would defend themselves in the case of an oppressive military. That came in the Bill Of Rights. But with that said, you could keep on moving up and up in the years and find fixes for almost anything. I said the system of government that was established by the revolution. That was the Confederate. They later learned that the Articles of Confederation weren't adequate to rule the land, and so the set up a new form of government. But the Representative republic it set up was not the system of government originally established.

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: Joony
What do you guys think? The immediate aftermath of the American Revolution didn't change much. The rich still had all the positions in the government, the poor was not represented at all, the slaves and women didn't have rights to vote. It took several decades for african americans and women to gain rights after many admendments to the constitution.

I'm writing a paper on this topic and I want to see what you guys think. Please provide some imput.

The purpose of the government is to redistribute wealth?
Secure rights for all people, but certainly not redistributing wealth.
That is stealing.

 

[glen]

Freedom of Religion was a HUGE part.
The Church of England and the Crown were basically one in the same.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: glen
Freedom of Religion was a HUGE part.
The Church of England and the Crown were basically one in the same.

As Established by Henry the VIII, yes I know that. The people didn't care, that was not one of the reasons that the revolt was even thought of. If it was such a big part, why wasn't it addressed in the original Constitution, and it took later actions by Massachusetts for it to become the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Hmmm History to 1876?

I wouldnt say the poor werent represented, they WERE.

Wrong. You had to be a white, male, LAND OWNER, to vote up until the late 1800s. Try being poor and owning land.

let me rephrase that, they were represented better than in any other country at the time. Alot of poor did own land. Also those that did not have a vote, still had a huge influence on those who were elected during the 1800s(excluding women and blacks).

By far and away the US government represented its people better than any other country at that time.

It wasnt perfect, I never said it was, but it was by far the best the world had at the time.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Hmmm History to 1876?

I wouldnt say the poor werent represented, they WERE.

Wrong. You had to be a white, male, LAND OWNER, to vote up until the late 1800s. Try being poor and owning land.

let me rephrase that, they were represented better than in any other country at the time. Alot of poor did own land. Also those that did not have a vote, still had a huge influence on those who were elected during the 1800s(excluding women and blacks).

By far and away the US government represented its people better than any other country at that time.

It wasnt perfect, I never said it was, but it was by far the best the world had at the time.

And still is. There is no perfect form of government. And a lot of poor did not own land. They worked on the land of wealthy plantation owners. 1/6 of the Southern population owned slaves. The other 5/6 either worked on land that had some how aquired, worked in town, or worked on plots of land given to them by plantations, with most leaning toward plantation land.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dtyn
It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

There would be no need for revolution if they lived under the form of government they established.

Yes there would. They revolted because of taxation without representation, the quartering of soliders in colonial homes (and overall oppression by the military), and overseas rule. Under the Confederate, which was what they originally setup, none of those things were addressed, with the exception of taxation, as it was illegal to have taxes.

The Confederated Congress could not tax. The states could. You just cant count the Articles of Confederation. The revolution lead to the eventual 1787 Constitution.

Which still didn't address the issues of quartering soldiers, or how the American people would defend themselves in the case of an oppressive military. That came in the Bill Of Rights. But with that said, you could keep on moving up and up in the years and find fixes for almost anything. I said the system of government that was established by the revolution. That was the Confederate. They later learned that the Articles of Confederation weren't adequate to rule the land, and so the set up a new form of government. But the Representative republic it set up was not the system of government originally established.

Considering the US constitution is the longest active constitution in the world, yes you do have to include it when talking about the revolution, without the revolution there would be no constitution. Not to mention the constitution came about less than 5 years after the end of the revolution, the articles of confederation were short lived. You cant over look the constitution inregards to the revolution. Saying the consitution wasnt based off the revolutionary war is not quite right.

Im sorry but I consider 1787 the immediate aftermath of the revolution. You can debate it all you want but the treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, the constitution was drawn up in 1787, and ratified by 9/13 states in 1988, 5 years removed from the treaty of paris, the bill of rights came less than 10.

You can debate the semantics all you want but on a time scale, 5-10 years is well within "the immediate aftermath".

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dtyn
It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

There would be no need for revolution if they lived under the form of government they established.

Yes there would. They revolted because of taxation without representation, the quartering of soliders in colonial homes (and overall oppression by the military), and overseas rule. Under the Confederate, which was what they originally setup, none of those things were addressed, with the exception of taxation, as it was illegal to have taxes.

The Confederated Congress could not tax. The states could. You just cant count the Articles of Confederation. The revolution lead to the eventual 1787 Constitution.

Which still didn't address the issues of quartering soldiers, or how the American people would defend themselves in the case of an oppressive military. That came in the Bill Of Rights. But with that said, you could keep on moving up and up in the years and find fixes for almost anything. I said the system of government that was established by the revolution. That was the Confederate. They later learned that the Articles of Confederation weren't adequate to rule the land, and so the set up a new form of government. But the Representative republic it set up was not the system of government originally established.

Considering the US constitution is the longest active constitution in the world, yes you do have to include it when talking about the revolution, without the revolution there would be no constitution. Not to mention the constitution came about less than 5 years after the end of the revolution, the articles of confederation were short lived. You cant over look the constitution inregards to the revolution. Saying the consitution wasnt based off the revolutionary war is not quite right.

Im sorry but I consider 1787 the immediate aftermath of the revolution. You can debate it all you want but the treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, the constitution was drawn up in 1787, and ratified by 9/13 states in 1988, 5 years removed from the treaty of paris, the bill of rights came less than 10.

You can debate the semantics all you want but on a time scale, 4-10 years is well within "the immediate aftermath".

Right, well we'll just let you set the definition of "immediate" since you seem to know so much.

The immediate government set up was the Confederate, as it came right after the war and was a system of government. You cannot debate that. Yes, our constitution is great and long lived, but it wasn't the first form of government setup after the revolution.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dtyn
It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

There would be no need for revolution if they lived under the form of government they established.

Yes there would. They revolted because of taxation without representation, the quartering of soliders in colonial homes (and overall oppression by the military), and overseas rule. Under the Confederate, which was what they originally setup, none of those things were addressed, with the exception of taxation, as it was illegal to have taxes.

The Confederated Congress could not tax. The states could. You just cant count the Articles of Confederation. The revolution lead to the eventual 1787 Constitution.

Which still didn't address the issues of quartering soldiers, or how the American people would defend themselves in the case of an oppressive military. That came in the Bill Of Rights. But with that said, you could keep on moving up and up in the years and find fixes for almost anything. I said the system of government that was established by the revolution. That was the Confederate. They later learned that the Articles of Confederation weren't adequate to rule the land, and so the set up a new form of government. But the Representative republic it set up was not the system of government originally established.

Considering the US constitution is the longest active constitution in the world, yes you do have to include it when talking about the revolution, without the revolution there would be no constitution. Not to mention the constitution came about less than 5 years after the end of the revolution, the articles of confederation were short lived. You cant over look the constitution inregards to the revolution. Saying the consitution wasnt based off the revolutionary war is not quite right.

Im sorry but I consider 1787 the immediate aftermath of the revolution. You can debate it all you want but the treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, the constitution was drawn up in 1787, and ratified by 9/13 states in 1988, 5 years removed from the treaty of paris, the bill of rights came less than 10.

You can debate the semantics all you want but on a time scale, 4-10 years is well within "the immediate aftermath".

Right, well we'll just let you set the definition of "immediate" since you seem to know so much.

The immediate government set up was the Confederate, as it came right after the war and was a system of government. You cannot debate that. Yes, our constitution is great and long lived, but it wasn't the first form of government setup after the revolution.

The AoC was inplace before(1781) the treaty of Paris of 1783, and was well on its way towards its demise by 1785. The first convention was in late 1786, which asked congress for another convention in early 1787.

Im fairly certain, most history teachers would accept the constitution and bill of rights as in the immediate aftermath of the revolution. I know mine did, and he had a PhD in History.

 

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dtyn
It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

There would be no need for revolution if they lived under the form of government they established.

Yes there would. They revolted because of taxation without representation, the quartering of soliders in colonial homes (and overall oppression by the military), and overseas rule. Under the Confederate, which was what they originally setup, none of those things were addressed, with the exception of taxation, as it was illegal to have taxes.

The Confederated Congress could not tax. The states could. You just cant count the Articles of Confederation. The revolution lead to the eventual 1787 Constitution.

Which still didn't address the issues of quartering soldiers, or how the American people would defend themselves in the case of an oppressive military. That came in the Bill Of Rights. But with that said, you could keep on moving up and up in the years and find fixes for almost anything. I said the system of government that was established by the revolution. That was the Confederate. They later learned that the Articles of Confederation weren't adequate to rule the land, and so the set up a new form of government. But the Representative republic it set up was not the system of government originally established.

Considering the US constitution is the longest active constitution in the world, yes you do have to include it when talking about the revolution, without the revolution there would be no constitution. Not to mention the constitution came about less than 5 years after the end of the revolution, the articles of confederation were short lived. You cant over look the constitution inregards to the revolution. Saying the consitution wasnt based off the revolutionary war is not quite right.

Im sorry but I consider 1787 the immediate aftermath of the revolution. You can debate it all you want but the treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, the constitution was drawn up in 1787, and ratified by 9/13 states in 1988, 5 years removed from the treaty of paris, the bill of rights came less than 10.

You can debate the semantics all you want but on a time scale, 4-10 years is well within "the immediate aftermath".

Right, well we'll just let you set the definition of "immediate" since you seem to know so much.

The immediate government set up was the Confederate, as it came right after the war and was a system of government. You cannot debate that. Yes, our constitution is great and long lived, but it wasn't the first form of government setup after the revolution.

The AoC was setup before(1781) the treaty of Paris of 1783, and was well on its way towards its demise by 1785. The first convention was in late 1786, which asked congress for another convention in early 1787.

Im fairly certain, most history teachers would accept the constitution and bill of rights as in the immediate aftermath of the revolution. I know mine did, and he had a PhD in History.

Fine, consider it the immediate aftermath all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that it was not the system of government immediately set up after the war. The first government was, is, and always will be the Confederate. (Most college profs have PhDs in their field, so your teacher is nothing special. Try having a teacher who specialized in American History for their thesis explain it to you.)

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: dtyn

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: dtyn
It wasn't meant to a revolution for human rights, it was meant as a revolution to attain freedom from an oppressive government. The main reason many changes took so long to occur is because 2/3 of the colonists didn't want to revolt, and the Declaration of Independence was narrowly passed, it had to be revised somewhere around 3 times so that the states would vote for it. The American Revolution almost never happened, and would not have happened under the system of government it established.

There would be no need for revolution if they lived under the form of government they established.

Yes there would. They revolted because of taxation without representation, the quartering of soliders in colonial homes (and overall oppression by the military), and overseas rule. Under the Confederate, which was what they originally setup, none of those things were addressed, with the exception of taxation, as it was illegal to have taxes.

The Confederated Congress could not tax. The states could. You just cant count the Articles of Confederation. The revolution lead to the eventual 1787 Constitution.

Which still didn't address the issues of quartering soldiers, or how the American people would defend themselves in the case of an oppressive military. That came in the Bill Of Rights. But with that said, you could keep on moving up and up in the years and find fixes for almost anything. I said the system of government that was established by the revolution. That was the Confederate. They later learned that the Articles of Confederation weren't adequate to rule the land, and so the set up a new form of government. But the Representative republic it set up was not the system of government originally established.

Considering the US constitution is the longest active constitution in the world, yes you do have to include it when talking about the revolution, without the revolution there would be no constitution. Not to mention the constitution came about less than 5 years after the end of the revolution, the articles of confederation were short lived. You cant over look the constitution inregards to the revolution. Saying the consitution wasnt based off the revolutionary war is not quite right.

Im sorry but I consider 1787 the immediate aftermath of the revolution. You can debate it all you want but the treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, the constitution was drawn up in 1787, and ratified by 9/13 states in 1988, 5 years removed from the treaty of paris, the bill of rights came less than 10.

You can debate the semantics all you want but on a time scale, 4-10 years is well within "the immediate aftermath".

Right, well we'll just let you set the definition of "immediate" since you seem to know so much.

The immediate government set up was the Confederate, as it came right after the war and was a system of government. You cannot debate that. Yes, our constitution is great and long lived, but it wasn't the first form of government setup after the revolution.

The AoC was setup before(1781) the treaty of Paris of 1783, and was well on its way towards its demise by 1785. The first convention was in late 1786, which asked congress for another convention in early 1787.

Im fairly certain, most history teachers would accept the constitution and bill of rights as in the immediate aftermath of the revolution. I know mine did, and he had a PhD in History.

Fine, consider it the immediate aftermath all you want. It still doesn't change the fact that it was not the system of government immediately set up after the war. The first government was, is, and always will be the Confederate. (Most college profs have PhDs in their field, so your teacher is nothing special. Try having a teacher who specialized in American History for their thesis explain it to you.)

Im not saying it wasnt. Im saying that the question is immediate aftermath, 3 years after the treaty of Paris for the first convention, 4 years for the second, 5 years for ratification and ~9 for the bill of rights could easily be interperted as the immediate aftermath. The AoC came near the very beginning of the American Revolution and ended very shortly after the American Revolution ended.

Unless his professor gave him a specific time frame for the "immediate aftermath". What do you want to judge as the immediate aftermath? He didnt ask what government was in place during and at the end of the American Revolution. So? 1 year? 5 years?

 

[Schadenfreude]

Uhh . . . pretty revolutionary?