Introduction to Ideology in the American Revolution
Introduction to Ideology in the American Revolution
The American Revolution was a revolution in the hearts and minds of the people.Discuss.
The term American Revolution is in itself highly controversial. There are those that see it as the throwing off of British tyranny and the start of democracy. More persuasively there are those that regard events as a colonial rebellion. The degree of revolutionary charge varied from state to state. The question posed is difficult in that the evidence for people's attitudes is slim. We have the work on pamphlets of the revolutionary era by B. Bailyn and G.S. Wood provides us with some insight into ideology but we can never be completely certain what eighteenth century Americans actually thought. In this discussion some of the conventional views of the ideology of the revolution will be analyzed before the central argument of the essay is discussed - namely that the events of the 1770s and 80s can also be attributed to other factors such as economics and personal interest. Jack Greene thought that dynamic political development in the face of static home government images may have been a vital reason for the broadened powers of the lower houses of assemblies. The colonial elites believed in the rights of Englishmen, one of which was the privilege of representation. The logical corollary to this argument was that the lower houses were equivalent to the House of Commons.
The Seven Years' War of 1756 -1763 saw a great acceleration in the lower houses' bid for authority. They gained more control over finance and the appointment of executives as well as becoming a training ground for able politicians such as Adams, Otis, Livingstone, Henry, Rutledge and Franklin. Greene thought the quest for power of the lower houses from 1689 to 1763 had brought political maturity , the control over local affairs, capable leaders and a rationale which all provided a drive to independence. This was a conflict that involved not only individual rights as traditionally emphasized by historians but assembly rights as well.
However, Gordon Woods thinks that Americans did not necessarily conceptualize politics in these terms. He and Bernard Bailyn argued that provincial Americans not only took in radical Whiggism but also came to perceive a conspiracy emanating from England to destroy American liberties. There was a growing belief that the English government was conspiratorially making 'a bold push for our entire subjection'. A number of British movements seemed to confirm this. The appearance of new government officials seemed to be part of the policy that ' leading men's dependents should be provided for in America'. The arrival of more troops heralded the advent of a standing army - despotism's traditional instrument of enforcement. Admiralty courts could possibly replace trial by jury and the invigoration of the Anglican establishment could be perceived as a threat to freedom.. The Quebec and Coercive Acts simply confirmed all these trends. Liberty was apparently fleeing this Old World and would have to seek asylum westwards.
However, if we accept the work of Greene and Wood uncritically we would certainly conclude that the revolution was a 'revolution in the hearts and minds of the people. Whig belief was the dominant ideology and this shaped the colonists conceptions of the English constitution and English politics. Wood wanted to connect the Whig interpretation with Enlightenment rationalism and New England covenant theology as well as appeal to antiquity to provide a revolutionary ideology. B. Bailyns convincing work on ideology would reinforce this view. However, perhaps the American Revolution can be partly explained with reference to other factors. Greene suffers from over-concentration on the elite of colonial society. Perhaps hindsight has been used to reconstruct a trend in assembly behaviors and colonial gentlemen may not even have recognized the pattern let alone have allowed it to affect their political actions.
Similarly contemporaries were worried about people's general passiveness in politics so how can we be sure that the bulk of pre-revolutionary Americans read political literature (even if Bailyn's studies show the vast variety of it) let alone become actively involved in politics ? Perhaps Wood has only captured the mind of elite leaders. The ideological explanation rests on the world view of the colonial leaders and their perceptions of British actions perhaps goes a long way to explaining American resistance.
But surely this ideological explanation is not sufficient because man does not live exclusively in the world of ideas nor were this gentry (immersed in such ideas) the only ones to rebel. The American resistance to British policy also owed something to economic considerations and the interests of ordinary people. For example the Declaratory Act was something of an empty and meaningless gesture but it was when influential colonists felt themselves threatened economically by British policy that they were most sensitive to their constitutional rights and liberties.
The Revolution should certainly be put into its economic as well as ideological context. The post Seven Year's War slump may have been decisive here. The Sugar and Stamp Acts were passed at a time of economic distress. In addition the financial crisis. In addition the financial crisis of 1772 put the East India Company in a precarious position and partially accounts for the collapse of credit in the colonies. Here the southern planters were particularly hit and they. along with others, could attribute economic difficulties to an imperial system over which they had no control. The revolution did not effect the hearts and minds of such people as much as their pockets.
But there were others who were not conditioned by libertarian ideology or lack of economic independence. Some tradesmen and artisans took part because they accepted the leadership of the gentry and were persuaded too that their liberty was threatened, a clear example of the subtle interactions between ideology and personal interest. However, as crowd actions recurred in the these years some men from the lower orders became leaders with popular political ideology of their own. Tom Paine's ideas in 'Common Sense' were widely known. Ideological considerations, then, moved some members of the lower orders and their ideas were often more radical than those of the gentry, but they were also influenced by personal interests.
For example American seamen living in the colonial ports were sometimes impressed into the Royal Navy - an experience which enabled them to link royal authority with tyranny a sthey had been denied both their livelihood and their liberty. I think there has been an overemphasis on ideology. The typical colonist was, if anything,a small farmer who made day to day decisions concerning his well-being and would be preoccupied with agricultural matters not high flown political theories. Indifference was probably very common. A great many people in all the colonies were not initially strongly committed either to the patriot or loyalist cause but as the war turned against the British increasing numbers saw the wisdom of declaring for the winning side. This provides us with a clear illustration that the revolution was not in everyone's hearts and minds initially.
It is the argument of this essay that unifying ideology was at best ambiguous. There was no national American Revolution but revolutions were being carried out at local and state levels. The Articles of Confederation of 1781 allowed each state to retain its prized individual sovereignty, and if Americans no longer thought of themselves as Englishmen they still thought of themselves as Virginians or New Yorkers first and American second.. This kind of localism is shown by the Green Mountain Boys in the hinterland of New York and New Hampshire who decided that they disliked New York's relatively conservative constitution and broke away to form Vermont. Perhaps it would be safer to say that the revolution was really only in the hearts and minds of the leaders of the people.
Some historians such as M.J. Heale, think that by the mid 1780s the revolutionary gentry were realizing that their own revolution had not extended down to the people and that the volatile state governments were still going their own way. By 1789 a constitutional revolution though not a social revolution had been completed - they had broken with the English precedent by establishing a national system of government which was wholly elective save for the judiciary. America's gentry were certainly anxious to counter the unreliable state governments with an imposing national edifice but they also saw that most wanted popular participation so the Constitution was designed to reconcile hierarchy with democracy. The key to this was the idea of representation. Ideally the people would elect their betters to represent them.
I think it is clear that many people simply did not succumb to such unifying ideology. When the fighting was over the revolution was still not firmly entrenched in the hearts and minds of the people. The world of most Americans continued to stop at their town, county or state boundaries. A new national government came into existence in 1789 but most Americans continued to ignore that government and for many years voter turn out in state elections such as for the governor was higher than the turnout for the presidential election. In the end a national society was created but as R. Wicke has pointed out this was because of the pressure from below rather than from the leaders. Ordinary people in their local communities made many institutions which helped to bind them together e.g. school systems, credit connections, religious associations and communications. Surely these are more concrete forces binding people together than ideology. Not until the early nineteenth century were Americans aware of their national obligations but even then it was only a partial revolution because blacks, Indians and womens' rights were still uncertain.
In conclusion it must be emphasized that more research needs to be done on factors explaining the America revolution besides ideology. Perhaps modern historians have given too much weight to the importance of ideology in revolution having viewed American events and French ones for that matter through the window of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution. The revolution in the hearts and minds of the people or the ideology of the revolution should be placed alongside economic and personal factors that made men rebel if a fuller picture is to emerge. This does not mean that John Adams dictum was wrong but it could have been wishful thinking on his part.
Dr Simon Harding
www.chronosconsulting.com
www.biblon.com
http://www.articlesbase.com/history-articles/introduction-to-ideology-in-the-american-revolution-3648015.html A Newbie's Ultimate Guide Pro Passengers Proposing To Tour On The Caribbean Trip Puyallup, Washington: A Place Of Interest Oasis Punta Cana Favorite Trip Directories Reservations Price-offs Gastronomical Treats And Hot Spot Places To Go In Melbourne, Australia - Pretty Please - Review The Ultimate Attraction Instructions On Taking A Perfect Travel In Riviera Maya A Novice's Easy-to-follow Tips To Tourists Aiming To Set Off On A Caribbean Trip Make Australia Visiting a Pleasant Tour A Superb Tourist Tips In Having The Action-packed Escape In Tijuana A Learner's Full Tips To Traveler Aiming To Voyage For A Caribbean Voyage A Basic Tourist Recommendations For Taking The Perfect Tour At Mexico City Paradise Punta Cana Exceptional Getaway Guides Hotels Combos Gourmet Plus Hot Spots Budapest - Important Traveling Tips Bodrum Travel Guide