Was American Revolution Radical??
Mr. Zucker argues…
Well, JZ, its go time once again. Lets see if you can keep up with me this time. I doubt it considering that your last blog entry was, lets say, a little, in a technical word, WRONG!!!
The American Revolution was a Radical Revolution. Most people don’t realize it but the American revolution actually changed major social and political norms in society. Most Historians, up to the present, have considered the American Revolution as significantly different than the one in France. The French Revolution has been considered to be radical because it stressed total equality on economic, political and social grounds. Typically, most American historians have argued that the American Revolution was a conservative revolution because it simply changed the political institutions in the country. Furthermore, the revolutionaries didn’t get rid of the basic hierarchy of relationships between the educated elite and the common person.
However, this viewpoint has missed the multiple changes that took place in ideals and social relationships. The Revolutionaries attacked the notion of hierarchy by criticizing the King of Britain and belief that the individual should be second to the good of the empire. Instead, the new belief centered around individual natural rights, following John Locke’s social contract philosophy. This forced the government to be accountable to the people instead of the opposite way around.
This new philosophy of natural rights proved to be a force that attacked the basic social, political and economic relationships of the local colonies. Colonists no longer showed absolute respect and subordination to the local governors and mayors. Before the revolution, common people were expected to leave room on the roads as governors and mayors passed in a sign of subservience. However, after the revolution, commoners walked side by side with leaders. This may seem small and symbolic. But the action showed that people in the colonies no longer accepted deference to leaders. This was then shown in the colonists’ demands for greater forms of representation and the creation of a republic.
Women challenged their traditional status in the colonies. Western tradition had argued that women ought to be in the home and subservient to their husbands. However, during the revolution, women argued for their own independence and their rights to political participation. Women, like Molly Pitcher, openly participated on the battlefield. Abigail Adams, wife of future president John Adams, wrote him a letter demanding that women be included in the creation of the Constitution. Premarital pregnancy rates increased showing a rebellion of young women and men against traditional norms of marriage, sex, and general relationships with the older generation.
Even slaves challenged the norms of the colonies. Black slaves used the fight between Britain and America to choose sides. Their choice was of course based upon who offered the greater freedom. This eventually spilt over after the war. Numerous northern colonies officially condemned slavery outright. Many people believed that slavery was on its way out altogether.
In the end, the American Revolution did resort to conservative counter revolutionary moves after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. However, the spirit and ideology of the Revolution itself was a radical move.
JZ replies…
Wow. That was an incredible argument Mr. Zucker. I guess I have no response…except for…oh yeah…you just forgot a few small exceptions like…
The American revolutionaries were largely led by the wealthy elite of the colonies. These elite were well educated merchants, lawyers, bankers and land owners. They feared the democratic mob. They were actually Loyalists to the British empire up until the few years before the revolution. Even Samuel Adams was a lawyer in favor of the British accused of the Boston Massacre. He did this for fear that the soldiers would not receive a fair trial from the American mob. Plus, remember that many individuals like Sam Adams were actually very conservative in their religious and social mindset.
The other problem with your argument is the beginning and ending point that you are putting on the issue. If you look at the issue simply from the time of the Revolution, you might be correct. But, look at what eventually happened. When the Articles of Confederation began to show weaknesses, the leaders of the revolution formed a national constitution that placed power in a strong federal government. This government could tax, build a strong national military, and create laws that were imposed upon the nation as a whole. This re-established hierarchy in America and created a group of natural aristocrats, or people who had risen to the top of leadership through their own natural talents.
It is true that people in America challenged certain social norms. However, does this really show radical change? Slavery still existed throughout the southern states in America. Racism began to grow with most white southerners seeing themselves above blacks whether or not they owned slaves. Yes, Abigail Adams threatened her husband that women would rebel if they weren’t included in the Bill of Rights. They weren’t. Her husband replied to Abigail that women did have power-in the HOME. So, how did things really radically change for women following the revolution? True, people shared the streets with governors and mayors. WOW. What a change. How is this not simply a small symbolic move that didn’t have much effect elsewhere?
In the end, the American Revolution had some changes in thought patterns and practices. But, nothing changed to the extent of the radicalism in France.
Try again next time, Zucks.
Well, JZ, its go time once again. Lets see if you can keep up with me this time. I doubt it considering that your last blog entry was, lets say, a little, in a technical word, WRONG!!!
The American Revolution was a Radical Revolution. Most people don’t realize it but the American revolution actually changed major social and political norms in society. Most Historians, up to the present, have considered the American Revolution as significantly different than the one in France. The French Revolution has been considered to be radical because it stressed total equality on economic, political and social grounds. Typically, most American historians have argued that the American Revolution was a conservative revolution because it simply changed the political institutions in the country. Furthermore, the revolutionaries didn’t get rid of the basic hierarchy of relationships between the educated elite and the common person.
However, this viewpoint has missed the multiple changes that took place in ideals and social relationships. The Revolutionaries attacked the notion of hierarchy by criticizing the King of Britain and belief that the individual should be second to the good of the empire. Instead, the new belief centered around individual natural rights, following John Locke’s social contract philosophy. This forced the government to be accountable to the people instead of the opposite way around.
This new philosophy of natural rights proved to be a force that attacked the basic social, political and economic relationships of the local colonies. Colonists no longer showed absolute respect and subordination to the local governors and mayors. Before the revolution, common people were expected to leave room on the roads as governors and mayors passed in a sign of subservience. However, after the revolution, commoners walked side by side with leaders. This may seem small and symbolic. But the action showed that people in the colonies no longer accepted deference to leaders. This was then shown in the colonists’ demands for greater forms of representation and the creation of a republic.
Women challenged their traditional status in the colonies. Western tradition had argued that women ought to be in the home and subservient to their husbands. However, during the revolution, women argued for their own independence and their rights to political participation. Women, like Molly Pitcher, openly participated on the battlefield. Abigail Adams, wife of future president John Adams, wrote him a letter demanding that women be included in the creation of the Constitution. Premarital pregnancy rates increased showing a rebellion of young women and men against traditional norms of marriage, sex, and general relationships with the older generation.
Even slaves challenged the norms of the colonies. Black slaves used the fight between Britain and America to choose sides. Their choice was of course based upon who offered the greater freedom. This eventually spilt over after the war. Numerous northern colonies officially condemned slavery outright. Many people believed that slavery was on its way out altogether.
In the end, the American Revolution did resort to conservative counter revolutionary moves after the failure of the Articles of Confederation. However, the spirit and ideology of the Revolution itself was a radical move.
JZ replies…
Wow. That was an incredible argument Mr. Zucker. I guess I have no response…except for…oh yeah…you just forgot a few small exceptions like…
The American revolutionaries were largely led by the wealthy elite of the colonies. These elite were well educated merchants, lawyers, bankers and land owners. They feared the democratic mob. They were actually Loyalists to the British empire up until the few years before the revolution. Even Samuel Adams was a lawyer in favor of the British accused of the Boston Massacre. He did this for fear that the soldiers would not receive a fair trial from the American mob. Plus, remember that many individuals like Sam Adams were actually very conservative in their religious and social mindset.
The other problem with your argument is the beginning and ending point that you are putting on the issue. If you look at the issue simply from the time of the Revolution, you might be correct. But, look at what eventually happened. When the Articles of Confederation began to show weaknesses, the leaders of the revolution formed a national constitution that placed power in a strong federal government. This government could tax, build a strong national military, and create laws that were imposed upon the nation as a whole. This re-established hierarchy in America and created a group of natural aristocrats, or people who had risen to the top of leadership through their own natural talents.
It is true that people in America challenged certain social norms. However, does this really show radical change? Slavery still existed throughout the southern states in America. Racism began to grow with most white southerners seeing themselves above blacks whether or not they owned slaves. Yes, Abigail Adams threatened her husband that women would rebel if they weren’t included in the Bill of Rights. They weren’t. Her husband replied to Abigail that women did have power-in the HOME. So, how did things really radically change for women following the revolution? True, people shared the streets with governors and mayors. WOW. What a change. How is this not simply a small symbolic move that didn’t have much effect elsewhere?
In the end, the American Revolution had some changes in thought patterns and practices. But, nothing changed to the extent of the radicalism in France.
Try again next time, Zucks.
posted by JZFormidableOpponent at 11:38 AM
75 Comments:
I agree with JZ because the American Revolution did not bring about as radical social changes as the French Revolution. OK, so in America the common people no longer stepped off the road to let the leaders pass, but commoners and leaders walked side by side. Well, during the French Revolution, the common people showed they were no longer subservient to the elites by chopping their heads off! That seems like a more radical social change. Also, the social status of women and slaves remained the same: both were inferior to men, who owned the land. The founding fathers of our nation, who attended the constitutional convention, were the wealthy elite. This is not such a radical change from the men who ran British government. Although America developed a new system of government that favored the people and their rights, the revolution that got them there was not a radical one.
I will agree with Mr. Sean Smith and his supporting of JZ. I do disagree with Mr Zucker and his statement that: The American Revolution was a Radical Revolution. I do not believe the American Revolution was a radical one. Though there were some social norms changed, that means nothing. America was ironically similar to British for a long time after the Revolution. Like Sean said, the social status of women and slaves remained the same. Everyone, especially slaves and women, were subservient to rich white (most of the time educated) males. In my opinion, the most radical thing to happen through the American Revolution, was firstly, the start of the "American Dream" philosophy, how an underdog can work hard and come out on top, and second, there was a slight shift to equality (note the emphasis on slight). Decades later, after the Revolution, was when America really became a "radical" country, starting with the Constitutional Convention.
Umberto Marsella Period 2
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
While I agree that the American Revolution was not as radical as the French Revolution (Colonist did not behead all the Loyalists in sight), the American Revolution was radical. Although the upper class lead the revolution, they were driven by the radical ideas of the Enlightenment. While JZ argues that the establishment of a strong central government by the Constitution re-established a hierarchy in America, the constitution also gave the people(white males) equal rights with the aristocracy by giving them the right to vote, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, and the right to a fair trial, amongst others. Voting especially was a radical idea because most governments feared the thought of people being able to decide what they thought was best. The Constitution also was radical in the way that it was structured. No government in Europe at this time had this many people who had an influence on the power in the government; therefore it became very hard for it be corrupt. In these respects the American Revolution was radical.
Nolan Welsh
Period 2
I agree with Mr. Zucker on this one (and therefore disagree with Sean and Umberto).
By the way I'd like to point out that JZ always has the advantage because he gets to make Mr. Zucker sound stupid since he speaks last... but that's beside the point.
Anyway. The American Revolution was definately radical. First of all, the primary value of the revolution was to protect individuals' natural rights and set up a government to do so. The new government was set up with the notion that a government had an obligation to protect the rights of its citizens, and that if it failed to do so then citizens had just cause to revolt. This was extremely radical, especially because those in power actually contented that revolution could be just, instead of setting up a system to keep their absolute power. The social idea that the government cater to the masses rather than vice versa had never been implemented before.
Furthermore, the new government set up post-revolution HAD NO MONARCH. THAT IS INSANE. Seriously, think about it. At the time, the global political goal was to gain an advantage in the balance of power between the world's superpowers. All 3 of these nations (England, France, and Spain) had a monarch. Monarchial government was obviously the most accepted and most successful system of the time for economic and political power. But the revolutionaries went against the dominant world-view and pursued a new system of checks and balances along with direct representation.
Though there were not immediate drastic social changes (as Sean hoped to find), the United States gradually evolved into the most democratic society in the world with the most universal representation for its people.
And saying that we didn't end up like France is just another example of how RADICALLY AWESOME this revolution was.
^ Last post by me, Michael Mezzatesta. Period 3.
Sorry for forgetting, I was in the zone.
Looks like I have to agree with Mr. Zucker again. JZ continues to refer to what eventually happened with regard to the revolution and the “aftermath of the aftermath.” Yes, the Articles of Confederation may have eventually begun to show weaknesses, but the ideologies of the Articles of Confederation and the Revolution were radical moves themselves. JZ has to understand that the effects and results of the Articles of Confederation holds no basis in the validity of whether or not the Revolution was radical. JZ mentions that if you only look at the time of the Revolution, then it might be considered radical; he obviously fails to realize the whole discussion is about whether the REVOLUTION (itself) was radical.
No, the American Revolution wasn’t identical to the French Revolution, but it was radical in its own regards. Although the French emphasized total equality, the revolutionary idea from John Locke and the Enlightenment—natural rights—also springboarded an attack on the social, political and economic grounds of society. This DID lead to social, political, and economic change. Politically, colonists looked within themselves rather than their leaders and ultimately demanded greater forms of representation and the creation of a republic. Socially, people no longer subserviently respected officials of apparent authority and women began to stand up and challenge their traditional roles within the colonies.
In this regard, I definitely say that the American Revolution was indeed radical and agree with Michael Mezzatesta. If JZ wants to proceed in his reference to the “aftermath of the aftermath” of the Revolution, as a result of this Revolution, the United States eventually became the most democratic society in the world with the most universal representation that any country can provide (even with the roadblock of the Articles of Confederation).
Jaleel Reed
10/17/07
PERIOD 1
I also agree with JZ that the American revolution did not bring about radical changes. Yes the American Revolution did change certain aspects of life in the 1700s, such as the guerilla tactics used by the American rebels that slowly picked off and demoralized the British soldiers, and the changes that came about from the government being accountable to the people instead of the people being accountable to the government, but this didn't change the overall hierarchy that existed in America. While it is true that the paranoia of the founding fathers that lead to their intricate systems of checks and balances to keep power spread out as far as possible and in as many people's hand's as possible (which is what they said they wanted to do), people actually were almost excluded from the voting process. For example, each state was allowed delegates according to the population of the state, but these delegates only voted on what the majority of the people in the state wanted, the delegates didn't split their votes according to the different views of the population. This buffer between the people and the actual election of the president kept power out of the people's hands and into the delegates who came from a majority of a state, so they didn't represent the entire state, which leaves people's opinions out of the election. This kept the United States from being the 'Democracy' that it claimed it was.
I agree with shean in agreeing with my point that the American revolution was not a radical revolution. He brings up the radical French revolution to contrast the American Revolution, and the difference between shooting at men in red tights from behind trees and chopping their leader's heads off shows the difference between these two rebellions in how radical they were. He also says that the men who made our constitution were the wealthy elite, which was very similar to the people who ran the British government, and this makes the rebellion and new government not very radical, but just paranoid old men's ideas on how to check the power of a strong central government.
Grant Ukropina
Period 1
I have to agree with JZ in this arguments because there were really no drastic political or social reforms. Yes, many norms of society changed but not to the extent of radicalism. The American Revolution was not nearly as radical as the French Revolution. There was a small change in social status along the lines of common people and governors living side by side, but I agree with Sean Smith when he says that during the French Revolution, common people rejected the higher class status by beheading them. There's nothing more radical than the chopping off of heads. Also, I disagree with Nolan as he says that people(white males) gained the right to vote amongst other concessions, but really these property-owning white males already had the ability to vote. Now if women and slaves got the right to vote, that would be a radical change, but they didn't. I have to disagree with Mr. Zucker when he says that the increase in premarital pregnancy as a rebellion by the women was radical. Women had always been challenging the norms of society. Yes, slaves did choose sides, but only based on the premise of freedom. Slaves had always tried to gain freedom and independence even before the American Revolution. Therefore, JZ is the man.
justin barnes
period 1
I agree with Mr. Zucker this time. The American Revolution was radical because of the changes from the institutions of England. One could argue, like Sean Smith, that the revolution and the government was ran like the wealthy just like in Britain. However, one significant change was that there was no monarch. Now although the Articles of Confederation had some room for improvement, there was no central leader with total power. Before, the king in England like in France had total power. The colonists had came to fear central government so much that when the Constitution was written there were so many checks and balances. This was largely to do the belief in John Locke's theory of natural rights. I agree with Mezzatesta's arguement when he says that the colonists pursued direct representation. This went against the English notion of virtual representation. Although it wasn't as radical as Sean Smith points out (no beheaddings), it was still radical in the context of them breaking away from the English.
David Dukesherer
Period 2
Howard Limburg
Period 3
I guess I have to agree with Mr. Zucker because I disagree with what JZ says. For instance JZ, says that the Articles of Confederation where thrown out and the Constitution was put in. I agree with that statement but it is the underlying reason why they were thrown out. JZ says that the articles were showing signs of weakness to them. The Articles of Confederation would have worked out tremendously if the people only gave them time. For example, JZ says that the people who made the constitution allowed for the power in a strong federal government, which could tax, build a strong national military, and create laws that were imposed upon the nation. JZ says that these were essential changes that had to be made. However, many people didn’t want a strong central government because that is what they fought against in the Revolution. Second, that the government didn’t have to tax the people because many states already taxed the citizens and paid off the war debt that they had accumulated. Third, why would a country need a strong centralized military if the government wasn’t the source for pretty much all of the problems. (The Whiskey Rebellion: started because the government placed a tax on the distilled spirits and other beverages. Then people rebelled because they didn’t want to pay it. So why would a country need a military to defend off its own people if the government is the source for the problems.) Finally, JZ is wrong because there were many social changes that were kindled in the Revolution. Even though the changes that people wanted i.e. abolition of slavery and womens rights, the ideas were still born in the revolution which then were held until later. Just for something to be radical doesn’t mean that it had to change; really, it had to just spark the notion of it for the actual change ot come at a later date. I also agree with Jaleel Reed because the American Revolution was a radical revolution because it spurred ideas that were foreign but it wasn’t as radical to previous revolutions such as the French Revolution.
I have to agree with JZ because I do believe that the American Revolution was not so revolutionary to be called radical. Mr. Zucker compares the American Revolution to the French Revolution. However, the American Revolution wasn't even on the same level as the French Revolution. As Sean Smith said, American colonists walking alongside with their leaders were petty changes compared to the people executing their leaders in France. Although there were some some-what radical ideas being thrown around here and there, the outcome of these ideas weren't radical at all. Mr. Zucker mentions Abigail Adams and how she threatened that the women would rebel if they were not recognized in the Constitution. But look what happened: the women weren't included in the Constitution and they didn't rebel. There's nothing radical about women not rebelling, unless you're a crazy feminist. And the whole argument about women having sex to show their rebellion, what's up with that? As Justin Barnes said, women have always challenged the norms of society. This even goes back to the times of the Salem Witch Trials. One reason for the Trials were because of the oppression and boredom of the female mind. Either way, this could just be another attempt to get some attention. Mr. Zucker also mentions that the slaves challenged the norms of the colonies but this is total rubbish. Many of the slaves in America were taken there against their own will and thus were just trying to preserve their own lives and freedom. They would choose sides with whomever offered the best deal of freedom. How is wanting to be free from a institution that you were put into against your own will radical?
John Ora
Period 3
I disagree with Nolan when he says that the idea of voting was radical. The founding fathers set up a system of voting in the Constitution that gave them a buffer from the common people, namely the Electoral College. Therefore, although America set up a democratic government, it was definitely not a direct democracy, which would have been radical.
Sean Smith
Period 1
(also posted the first comment)
I disagree with JZ when he says that the American revolution was radical in completely flipping the relationship between government and people. The Revolution did not establish a government that was accountable to the people. The Articles of Confederation merely established a government so weak that it could not be a threat to the people. I completely agree with Umberto when he says that the true radical shift came with the advent of the Constitution, which created a relatively powerful central government completely accountable to the people.
Jean-Michel Royall
Period 1
I agree with JZ because he gets the overall message across. But he fails to mention the pionts that Mr. Zucker is right on. JZ is right that overall, the American Revolution was not radical. He has the piont that although the revolution had some radical ideas, its outcome was not radical. However, Mr. Zucker is right that the Revolution was radical during the time period in which it was taking place. For instance, he mentions how social ranking was completely turned upside down by the revolutionary ideas. He states how the government and people's social obligations were switched during the revolution making the government and the people equal entites. However, JZ does make a good point in stating that the American Revolution was not like the French Revolution, which was extremely radical. On this topic, I agree with Sean Smith in that there were different degrees in how radical the revolutions were. By far, the French Revolution was much more radical than the American Revolution. But they were similar still in that in both revolutions the poeple showed they were no longer subservient, even if it was in different ways.
Daniel Angeles
Period 3
JZ is right once again. The American Revolution was certainly not radical. To be radical the American Revolution had to have changed extremely the previous economic, social, and political systems. Mr. Zucker argues that it got rid of the social hierarchy with the king at the top that existed in pre-Revolutionary times. He also points out the fact that people walked side by side with leaders instead of bowing down to them on the street. He also states that women and blacks argued for greater freedom during the Revolution.
However none of these "changes" signify a radical revolution. First of all, the hierarchy that was supposedly replaced after the Revolution was only replaced by the same hierarchy only with an aristocracy at the top. Walking side by side with leaders of the day really only applied to rich aristocratic white males of the day. A radical revolution might have been true if all people, blacks, women, and the poor could walk side by side with the leaders. Lastly though women and blacks argued for more freedoms during the Revolution, no radical changes occurred because of it. The institution of slavery still thrived and women were still designated to their rolls in the home. The Revolution was not radical.
Wil Heintz
I have to disagree with Jaleel's support of the argument that the Revolution was indeed radical. He argues that people who used to look to their leaders to make decisions instead looked to themselves. He says that the idea of representation and a republic was a radical and new idea. The ideas of a republic that included only the aristocracy goes all the way back to the Greeks who constructed a republic in which aristocratic citizens held sway. These ideas were revived during the Enlightenment and were used by the fathers of the Revolution. These were not radical ideas even at the time of the revolution. They were just slightly different from their previous situation with England. Before, people did not mindlessly do everything that their leaders dictated. The leaders of the day did actually still have to listen to the ideas of their individual subjects if they wanted to remain in power. The fact that the Revolution happened did not mean that people before did not think for themselves on issues. The Revolution was not radical.
Wil Heintz
I agree with JZ on this one. Although the Revolution can be seen as radical, like JZ said, it only really changed life for the rich white males. The American Revolution truly affected a very small percent of the “mass” people. However, in France, this was very different—the poor and starving were the ones who overthrew the monarchy. The French people were acting upon an economic, political, and social standpoint; when they revolted, life changed drastically for them. However in America, once independence was achieved from Britain, everyday life of the common citizen did not alter that much. Slavery was still in place and women were still objects of the house. As Will Heintz points out, the hierarchy changed very little; instead of a king at the top, there were a few wealthy males. Also, the Revolution cannot be considered radical because the voice of the people was not heard. Even with representatives and voting, traditions remained and Blacks, women, and the poor did not receive any say in the government.
Matt Lee
Period 1
This comment has been removed by the author.
The American Revolution and its aftermath were more evolutionary than revolutionary. Mr. Zucker writes, "[A]fter the revolution, commoners walked side by side with leaders." While true from a literal standpoint, this metaphorical statement becomes erroneous when uesd to describe the political realities of the infant United States. Equality prevailed only among members of the WHYP group (wealthy white male landowners). Despite the lofty ideals of the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, . . ." equality for EVERYONE was not really established to even a minimal extent until the 20th century Civil Rights Movement. Some would argue that even today, there is no complete "equality" throughout the United States. The paradox of unequal limited "equality" clearly debunks the notion that the United States began a radical, new form of social construct.
While John Locke's social contract ideas were indeed incorporated into the new nation's political system, government actually remained quite similar to the British model. American Revolutionists rebelled against an autocratic British monarch and overly oppressive Parliament and, amazingly enough, replaced the two with a national executive and a powerful--and still bicameral--legislative branch whose laws and treaties were "the supreme law of the land."
Furthermore, Constitutional Congress delegates gave the judiciary branch the power to declare state laws unconstitutional. Influential lawyer, founding father, and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton deemed the British constitution to be "the best model the world has ever produced." Despite having been instumental to the founding of the United States, Hamilton decisively opposed radical changes.
Mr. Zucker argues that slaves partook in a form of radical revolution and that many felt slavery was nearing its end. This assessment is not entirely correct. While many--most--of the founding fathers (particularly Northerners of Puritan heritage) had strong religious convictions, they willingly compromised on what one would hope would be a stong moral principle: oppsition to slavery. Constitutional Convention delegates compromised that the issue of international slave trade could not even be voted on before 1808. Radical indeed?--definitely not.
I agree with Matt Lee's perspective that the American Revolution significantly impacted only a small, elite segment of the population at large. Very few people (essentially upper-class men only) could vote; suffrage came after the Civil War for blacks in the fifteenth amendment. Women gained the right to vote in 1920 with the passage of the nineteenth amendment.
One final thought: Though the American Revolution did not epitomize the notion of radical revolutionism (it was actually quite the opposite), it did set the precedent for the 1789 French Revolution--a radical event indeed.
Brendan Folan
Period 1
I also agree with JZ (and Sean Smith/ Umberto). Just because there were a few changes in society's mindset doesn't mean the Revolution itself was radical. Likewise, just because there were some radical changes, (as Michael Mezz. pointed out)such as: the new mindset of the government to protect rights of the people; the accountability of the government to the people; and the abolition of monarchial rule over the colonies don't make the entire Revolution radical.
The social hierarchy did not change much since the eradication of the British from America: The British were not there to look down upon the men, women, slaves, and overall populace. But after the Revolution, the men in American society took their place: women were still subservient in their mindsets, slaves were still inferior and not even human, lower class males without property didn't really have a voice. As Sean Smith said, the founding fathers were wealthy elite, just like the British who ran us were. So is this a huge SOCIAL difference than when the British were here? Remember, I am speaking in the context of BEFORE the drafting and beginnings of the Constitution. (Right after the Revolution.)
The American Revolution was not radical, not because it was not as extreme as the French Revolution, but because real radical changes weren't implemented until after the Constitution was final, which was way after the American Revolution.
--Jason Jeffrey, Period 2
I've got to agree with JZ on this one. The American Revolution was not very radical. In the end, it set up a constitution fairy similar to England's at the time. I also agree with what JZ said in regards to American "social change". Just because Abigail Adams told her husband to include woman's rights in the constitution, it doesn't mean it happened. In fact, it did not and John Adams told her that she had enough power at HOME. Also, although slavery did tend to be looked more down upon after the Revolution, it still existed.
However, Mr. Zucker does have some valid points. Socially, the Americans did tend to act much less subserviently to their higher ranks. Also, John Locke's new theories made the government accountable to the people, not the people accountable for the government.
I agree with what Grant Ukropina said that yes, the American Revolution did change certain aspects of life in the 1700s, and the changes that came about from the government being accountable to the people instead of the people being accountable to the government, but this didn't change the overall hierarchy that existed in America.
Brandon Alessini
Period 3
I believe that the American Revolution was a Radical Revolution thus siding with Mr. Zucker. Before the American Revolution, the Americans were not treated fair because they were ruled by a king in another area of the world. Althought the king did establish local governors, they did not necessarily look out for the well being of the Americans. After the American Revoultion, the Americans suggested a republic being used. This was in a way radical because this type of government had not been in use before. As Micael wrote, they were the first to set up a republic or suggest a republic because the three most dominant powers at the time were France, Spain, and England and they all had a monarchy. The new government was radical because it established little power for the government. The new government gave the people more power and protected individual's rights. The government was required to protect its citizens and establish a government that they the people more power so it would not end up like a new version of the British ruling. Mr. Zucker wrote that after the revolution women began to challenge traditional norms such as Molly Pitcher. This truly was radical because at the time women were viewed as staying at home but this changed the way people began to look at the women. For example, Abigail Williams would later plea to her husband to include the women in the making of the Constitution. The revolution in general was radical because it led to new reforms politically, economically, and socially.
Andres Diaz
Period 1
I agree with what Michael wrote. He believes that one of the reasons for the revolution for being radical is because the Americans used a new form of government, a republic. The Americans formed a government for the people, where the people had more power than one ruler. By having equal or even more power than the ruler, the Americans could easily revolt against the ruler. He also stated that the government was required to protect its people which was not very common back then.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Both of you, Mr. Zucker and JZ, have excellent argument, but I must ultimately side JZ on this one. Revolutions through out history never put "the people" in charge without resorting to total anarchy. Even revolutions fueled by ideals like freedom, individual rights, and liberty, must ultimately put the losers our of favor so that the victors of the revolution gain power. Then again, it seems like the course of natural human history for the weak minded masses to fall prey to those cunning enough to manipulate them.
Take for example, the Sons of Liberty. What were they, but not a way for the elite to vent the mob rage of the American people into more positive (at least for the revolutionaries') forms. However, Mr. Zucker, one of your main points was that the revolution was all about it's idealistic individualism. Funny, that notion pulled black slaves in between siding with the British or the Americans, as you pointed out, Mr. Zucker pointed out, but of course "property's" individual freedom is a silly, if not scary notion to elite revolutionaries. Now, Mr. Zucker, you also claim that the American revolution fell back to a conservative one of an implied fear of the "mob mind" taking over, while still holding to its ideals. Such a fecal claim, considering actions speak louder than words, and even more so than just ideas. That's one of the reasons why the French were indeed more radical. Ousting a government that never held a heavy or direct reign over a wannabe, excuse me, new born, country, was a challenge for the Americans, but no where near as hard as attempting revolutions in Europe, where centuries of hierarchy, lordship, aristocracy, and government, that for a good portion of their history, answered to no one, would stand in the way.
The Americans, on the other hand, had founded their little colonies with a high level of autonomy. However, that is not to say the ways of Europe did not heavily influence the revolution. To the contrary, the ideals of the Enlightenment, an era of idealism which in begins in Europe, heavily influenced patriots. Even more so, an English Philosopher John Locke, would have a good amount of his work plagiarized in the Declaration of Independence. Clearly, the ideals of the revolution weren't what one would call original. Now, you also claim that women rebelled against the social limits on them that stem from the European tradition. We could say the Daughters of Liberty did some good in the revolution, but ultimately even they were doing "women's work," like sowing clothes do Americans don't import from Britain. Once again, yes, a hand few of key or well educated women questioned the white-male dominated revolution, but like JZ clearly pointed, even a 'radical' like Samuel Adams reminded his wife that "her power lies at home." After all, the Declaration of Independence states all (implicitly white and land owning) men are created equal, not all humans.
Now, JZ, you make a lot of great point, and ultimately, you are correct. The American revolution would, inevitably, replace one group of white male elite that was 3,000 miles away with an white male elite group stationed at home and slightly larger in size. The federalist elite had plenty of good intentions, but in the end, with all of the taxes and British occupation, it was their own interests that drove the elite to revolution, and the same could be said for the rest of the American population. The Articles of Confederation was unstable, but reverting back to a centralized, federal government, knowing that the farmers they just freed from tyrannical Britain fear and hate a central government, was clearly for the Elite's sake. Not to say the new constitution wasn't extremely versatile, considering the extremely small demographic group. After all Jefferson described it as a meeting of demigods. That said, the problem, as you described fairly well, JZ, is that that means they are well above the issues of the common American or those "beneath them." However, in the end, what is wrong with the best, JZ, dominating. The new government, holding to some of those radical ideals that sparked the revolution, did develop checks and balances. In the end, it would only make sense for the best to dominate the weaker in a competitive thing like politics, which ultimately reminds us that all governments are filled with that elitist biased.
Now, I agree with what wil.heintz said in his earlier post, the American revolution simply replace a a bigger evil for a smaller one. After all, Mr. Zucker, those revolutionary checks and balances were meant to make the government do absolutely nothing. Other than that, the federal government replaced one hierarchy with another, abet, a "fairer" one (remind oneself, fairer for whom). Sure, the elite revolutionists converted to the revolution when it suited them best and back-stabbed the people they originally walked along side, but neither radically changed the social order. All that aside, the American revolution required less blood shed than other revolutions that would follow it (not to diminish the Americans who died in the war), had a lot of claiming of not wanting to be enslaved, while having leaders who held on to their own slaves, claiming to be individualistic while making women assets, and all those other cute reminders that politics, is just one monstrous evil fighting another, monstrous evil.
Edgar Tejada, Period 2
test
I agree with Will in saying that JZ definately got this one right. The American Revolution can't be compared with the French Revolution. In the latter people were killing administration which never happened in the American Revolution. I agree with Will and see that the social changes that were occuring did not represent a drastic change in the social structure and the hiearchy that was gotten rid of was just replaced again shortly after the Articles of Confederation failed. At least slavery was abolished during this revolution, a seemingly ovbious radical change. O wait the slavery problems were around for another 75 good years. Many who have spoken before me said that the people who made the descions in the Revolution were rich, white, land-owning males which sounds a lot like the people who made the descions in the old government. This revolution was not radical because it did not shake up the political and social structures enough.
Philip Wagner
Period 3
Bladimir Gonzalez
Period 1
Both of the authors have good arguments, but overall, it seems that it wasn’t as radical as past revolutions, so I guess I’m going to have to agree with JZ. There are many people who believe that a lot changed during this time, like that women were asking for more rights and that slaves were feeling rebellious, but nothing ever happened. Women weren’t allowed to vote until the early 20th century, and slavery wasn’t completely abolished until 1865, and even after this happened, African-Americans still dealt with a lot of racism in the South. The idea of human nature, and ideas of that matter also came from Europe and it wasn’t like the leaders of the Revolution were coming up with them during their time in the Americas. JZ is correct in saying that it didn’t happen overnight, but the things that he brings up make the most sense. Imagine if today we saw the president as a sort of demigod, someone who was human, but miraculously had more powers than us? During modern times, radical ideas that we see right now are those of homosexual couples and how they would want to do what they are doing. Looking at it this way, the changes that were made during that time weren’t proportional in their radical ways. I think another measure to see if it was radical would be to measure how much more radical it was to other revolutions. The French Revolution was a constant battle among the revolutionaries and the government, but the violence wasn’t as great as it was in France because the two groups going at it were separated by the Atlantic Ocean. These are the reasons why JZ wins the argument.
Bladimir Gonzalez, Period 1
For this argument, i'm going to have to disagree with Andres. As JZ points out in his argument, the changes came much later, so they made it for us to live the way that we do. The people's rights are essential because they would be the ones that are putting up with what the government says, and they could've made the revolution much worse. it can be seen as the way that Alexander Hamilton had the federal government pay off the debt for the war from the states, and the states saw that he did a good thing for them and paid him back. the leaders at the time of the revolution included these things so that people can see them in the same consent and do any reasonable things that they offer.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alright, I'll give JZ one thing. The social norms, although challenged, did not change all that much during the revolution. Women were still disadvantaged to men in society, and racism continued with segregation in the north and slavery in the south. But the American Revolution was radical considering the changes it brought to the government. Unlike the British monarchical system, the republic under the Articles of Confederation made a government that was accountable to the people and their respective states. States acted as separate entities while the unicameral legislature "in charge" had little influence over them. After this form of leadership arguably failed, the Constitutionalists made a stronger federal government that still provided ample representation to the common man. Overall, the new government(s) formed after the Revolution gave power to the common man which radically differed from the unlimited power of the British monarch. Thus, Mr. Zucker was correct, the American Revolution was radical.
Sean Smith, I'm going to have to disagree you. You correctly stated that the social statuses of women and slaves remained the same as they were before the Revolution. However, the founding fathers, while wealthy elite, represented the common man. Thomas Jefferson, for example, believed that the common farmer had the best intuition on what the government's role in society should be. Jefferson as well as his supporters argued for a Bill of Rights that would protect every American from a tyrannical government. Therefore, these "elites" differed from Parliament who had little care for the "natural rights" of the American citizens.
Daniel Russell
Period 1
I agree with JZ's stance on this issue. That stance being that the American Revolution wasn't a radical one (especially not as radical as the French Revolution). For one, the leaders of the revolution were the radical leaders of the democratic mob. In fact, they were largely the wealthy, conservative elite of the colonies. On several instances, the leaders of the revolution looked down on radical actions taken by the democratic mob (especially the Sons Of Liberty. Moreover, the ultimate government formed by the Americans was a conservative one that actually favored a strong central government (albeit with checks and balances), hardly a radical change. Lastly, concerning the issue of blacks and women, I agree with sean smith, who wrote, "Also, the social status of women and slaves remained the same: both were inferior to men, who owned the land." The status of these two groups didn't undergo any radical change. The American Revolution was hardly radical.
Andrew Santana
Period 3
I will have to agree with JZ on this post. The American Revolution was definitely NOT a radical Revolution. As stated, the revolutions were carried out by the intelligent, wealthy, and pasty-skinned people of society--for fear of a democratic mob. Also, at first a huge majority of the colonists were actually Loyalists (doesn't sound radical to me), until they were persuaded (for example, like how Mr. Gibson changed his views in the Patriot) to join the Revolutionary army. Mr. Zucker is kind of "skimming the surface" with his argument, and JZ does a good job of mentioning the importance of the federal government that was implemented. People such as Thomas Jefferson might argue that the best economy and government is based upon individualism, but we saw that state governments created their own currency, and that actually kind of "wrecked" the economy so to speak. People like Hamilton, on the other hand, stress the importance of a strong centralized government, that would be able to tax, protect its country with a strong "united" army, and create laws that for ALL the people to follow. Also, with this development of a natural aristocracy, we begin to see competition within the colonists, and the people that are born to "naturally" lead will rise up and prove their strength. I think this goes to show that the Revolution was not really radical... it was just a way of evolving, and uniting into an independent nation that would be a force to reckon with in the near future.
I am also going to have to agree with Mr. Ukropina (Grant). Besides the fact that he is a good guy, he brings up a lot of good points. As mentioned, the Revolution was not radical, it just changed some aspects of life. He mentions the geurilla warfare tactics that helped demoralize the British, the subtle change in hierarchy, and most importantly, the "buffer" system within the people during the election process. None of these changes should be considered "radical," they were just different. Change is good.
Sean Fitz-Gerald
Period 2
I'll have to agree with Mr. Zucker on this one. What set the US Revolution apart from the French Revolution was the reasonable stability that resulted from the American Revolution, whereas in France, the entire country was a mess. In America after the Revolution, even though the federal government didn't always agree with some of the progressive ideals, they were embraced by the people. For example, blacks and Northerners (for the most part) opposed slavery, which, for the time, was a pretty radical ideal. Additionally, after the Revolution, women began to find their own identity outside the home. On the governmental side of things, I'll have to agree with Mezzatesta when he said, "The social idea that the government cater to the masses rather than vice versa had never been implemented before." The idea of accountability was unheard of, and was the last thing that the British government wanted when they controlled the colonies.
Calling the American Revolution anything other than 'radical' would be incorrect. After all, it was the American Revolution that inspired the Français to do the same.
I agree with Mr. Zucker in this turn of words. It was a radical revolution. They really had no legitimate justifiable reasons and to add to this, the ideas and the kind of society that was created afterwards was very radical compared to the previous ideas and goverments.
New philosophies and ideas brought by John Locke created the Social Contract. This created a whole new mind set for people in society: It wasn't there fault. They could blame the government when things went bad justifiably. This idea alone is radical when you look at the way other European countries were structured. Also i disagree with JZ when he says it wasn't a big deal that they women and slaves rebelled. The fact that Woman and Slaves would even think about doing this shows that something is different. I agree with Nolan when he says that the enlightenment and thinkers coming from it brought radical ideas to the new America and that qualifies it as a revolution.
Drey Liautaud
Period 2
The problem here is that both positions are wrong. The problem with the previous statement is that both sides are also true. They just get confused. Sometimes people can only see in extremes, they can never see the truth. However, one is more correct. Mr Zucker is correct in his reasoning that the US revolution was a radical revolution. What JZ does not understand about this arguement is that it was a development of radicalism. Yes, the people who brought it about were for the most part tories, at least at first, it was not only they who created this new government. Look at Alexander Hamilton, he worked his way up from nothing and he was most definitely not a tory- yet his ideas remain heavily influential in modern government! JZ does not understand that a revolution is not about what you start with, it's what you end up with.
John Gunderman
Per 2
Wow, I have to say that i was pretty impressed with Edgars spiel. I feel his first comment really has a point (that power can never be fully put into the hands of the people without complete anarchy). This reminds me of the comunist form of government. Some might argue whether or not this form of government was giving the power to the people or taking it away, but either way i feel that this is what edgar is trying to get at when he talks about how power was distributed in government. The form of self policing government our founding fathers set up definitely sets the best standard out of all the options.
John Gunderman
Per 2
I have to disagree with Mr. Zucker here.
The American Revolution was not a radical one. The French Revolution and Communist Revolution were radical. The French and Communist Revolutions not only toppled their respective governments but also undertook huge social reform. While the American Revolution did change the government, truly significant social reform is glaringly absent from the Revolution. This is where I challenge Mezz: the American Revolution cannot be called radical solely based on that America defied the norm of a monarchy, especially considering that social reform was not a direct effect of the Revolution. Sure, the idea of natural rights and equality pervaded the thought of several different peoples in America—women demanded the vote, and slaves demanded freedom, for example—but JZ is right on the mark when he says that radical reform didn’t occur anytime soon after the Revolution. Slavery wouldn’t be abolished till after the Civil War, and women would not be granted suffrage till the passing of the 19th Amendment. A chief example is when the Northern states, the major proponents of abolition, seemingly condoned the existence of slavery in their compromise with the Southern states regarding runaway slaves. Yes, the North believed that slavery should be abolished, but did abolishment occur anytime soon?
Radical ideas? Yes.
Radical revolution? I think not.
Michael Mercurio
Period 2
I agree with JZ on this issue of American Radicalism. The American Revolution[s] cannot be seen as totally extremist because the changes that were made to politics, social conduct, economics, and ideology did not even compare to adjustments made in France. But I do believe that with out these changes, America would not be what it is today. On the contrary, I also agree with Sean and Umberto that America's changes left women as well as African slaves in a rut, while the rich white males remained in their indubitable seats of power within society.
Jason Watkins
Period 2
I agree with Mr. Zucker that the revolution was, indeed, a radical revolution. The basic idea that people were unhappy with the government and chose to rebel, rather than continuing to pursue diplomatic means, is evidence of this. JZ continually points out that what occurred after the revolution was not radical, and instead followed more in the footsteps of Britain. First of all, this is only the aftermath, and not actually the revolution. Although the leaders may have had stronger ties to the British government, if for personal or other interests they did involve themselves in a highly radical rebellion, which did not show much promise at the beginning. Also, the government which the people set up is very radical. Although the early American government did incorporate ideals like the three bodied government from the British, they did develop highly radical ideals of their own. The republic, supported by ideals of John Locke and Thomas Paine, was a very different government, which had not been used since the Greek Republic. The trial of such an unheard of government is a very radical leap. Early leaders such as Alexander Hamilton wanted to try radical ideals in their new government. In order to build-up a fledgling government, in such a desirable territory, radical ideas had to be implemented for the society to advance as quickly as America has done.
I disagree with Wil Heintz that the republic was “not” a radical step. Although it had been implemented before in Greece, this is from a long time ago. The republic implemented in Greece was in a different area, different time period, and under extremely different circumstances! You cannot think that making the leap of faith to try such a questionable government is truly a sound, expected decision.
Sho Tsubakiyama
Period 2
AP-US
I agree with JZ in the American Revolution should not be qualified as a radical one. Mr. Zucker’s main argument revolves around different groups at the time speaking out against their place in society such as the women and the slaves. However, this was not the reasons for the American Revolution. The American Revolution was based around the white elites that were simply concerned about their money. Hmmm sounds like the starting of a huge radical revolution seeing how the white elites remained loyal to the British until a revolution seemed like the last possible option. Yes, Mr. Zucker is right when he says that slaves and women spoke out…but did anything really happen? Abigail Adams threatened John Adams that women needed to be included in the constitution. Women were not included in the constitution or in founding the constitution. That example of somehow Abigail Adams prompting a sort of social change is absurd. The articles of confederation and the constitution were written by the white elitist that did not take into consideration the minority groups at all. The only change that is valid is that the commoners and their leaders could walk on the same road. Wow, this is truly meaningless seeing how the leaders are no longer British, but are American – people they could always walk side-by-side with.
Sho points out that one has to look at the revolution itself and not the results. That makes no sense because the revolution itself occurs to produce the results. The American colonists did not rebel just to rebel; they rebelled for specific results and through looking at the results and how very little changed in the social structure; hence, it is easy to deduce that the American Revolution was not radical.
Warren Williamson P. 1
I agree with JZ on this argument and support Mercurio and Barnes. The American Revolution was not a radical revolution like the French Revolution (but who cares about the French). In the French Revolution, they forcefully removed their king, killed him, and instituted radical changes to society. The American Revolution did change the government but not in any way as radically other revolutions such as the French. When the colonists came from Europe they were breaking away from the traditional monarchy. As JZ said, even though there were radical ideas during the time, such as women’s rights and emancipation of slaves, neither of these was impacted by the Revolution. As Mercurio said, “Slavery wouldn’t be abolished until after the Civil War, and women would not be granted suffrage until the passing of the 19th Amendment.” Those in the North who wanted to abolish slavery, due to both religious objections and the fact that slaves did not benefit their economy, really ended up doing nothing. They said they would acknowledge the Fugitive Slave Act and return run away slaves to the South, but they did nothing to enforce this. In the end there really was no change. Those in government positions and average citizens were placed on a more similar level, but this was nothing radical like the people cutting off their leaders’ heads. As Grant said, the people who were writing our constitution were still wealthy, educated, white, land owning elite, which was similar to the way it had always been. There is no way you can say the American Revolution was a radical revolution. You’re wrong Mr. Zucker…again.
Andrew Garcia
Period 2
I have to go with JZ on this issue. First of all, the comparison of the American Revolution and the French revolution Zucker presents is not valid. The French Revolution was made on French while the American Revolution was held far away from the lands from Britain. The American Revolution was made for the purposes of decreasing the tax and creating representation which later resulted in this whole idea in which Americans wanted to separate from the oppressive powers of Britain. The French Revolution was based on the home land and went to drastic measures as killing the king. The start of the American Revolution just started with this small notion of trying to lower the unneeded taxes. This idea also relates to the idea that America did not want this radical revolution in the first place. The American idea was to decrease the tax and get representation. It was only the British response to the American action that made the Americans want to have this revolution in the first place. The idea for revolution came well after the conflicts that resulted like that of the Boston Massacre. This idea is shown though the explication on Samuel Adams. Additionally, the slave argument presented by Zucker is flawed. He fails to realize that British took the first step to give Africans freedom. So this acts against Zucker’s main point in that this idea of freedom of the slaves resulted from some contributing actions of the British.
Furthermore, I have to disagree with Mezzatesta in that he fails to look at the bigger picture. He fails to recognize that the cause for revolution was the British action on the American protests against taxes and lack of representation. The reforms that Americans made still allowed Britain to keep their government.
Stephen Obal
Period 3
The American Revolution was definitely radical. Therefore, I agree with Mr. Zucker and disagree with JZ. The Revolution was radical because the Americans instituted a completely different government once they became free of Britain. When Britain was in power, the Americans had to be subservient to a government that was ruled by one body. This body was the Parliament. Parliament controlled the British Empire. Parliament essentially controlled everything that was British, including the colonies. Unlike the Parliament, the American government controlled nothing because the American government could do nothing. This was the big change. The government went from doing everything to nothing because of all the checks and balances that were instituted into the government. For instance, the following steps were, and still are, taken in passing a bill to become a law. A bill begins as an idea of a citizen, and the idea is taken to a congressperson. After a bill is drafted, representatives (either congresspersons or senators) propose a bill in the House. The bill is read to the representatives on the floor. The bill is then sent to the appropriate House or Senate standing committee. The committee holds public hearings on the bill where individuals or interested groups can give public comments or testimony on what they think of the bill. The committee debates and votes on whether to approve the bill and send the bill back to the floor (with or without amendments), or to “kill” the bill by keeping it in committee for further debate. If the committee approves the bill, it goes to the floor of the originating house where it is read a second time. At this point, any amendments made to the bill are debated by the members of this house of Congress. After the debate is finished, the bill is read a third time. The members debate again, and vote on the bill. If the first house passes the bill, it goes to the second house. The whole process starts over again in the second house. If the House and Senate pass different versions of the same bill, the bill is sent to a conference committee made up of members from both houses to try and reach a compromise on the bill. Both houses must then agree to the compromise by majority vote. If both houses agree on a final version of the bill, it goes to the president for his or her signature. The president can then sign the bill into law or veto the bill. If the president vetoes the bill, it is sent back to the Congress. Congress can then re-vote on the bill. If each house of Congress votes to override the veto by a 2/3 majority vote, the bill becomes a law. Furthermore, as one can see, there are so many checks and balances in the government. A bill can possibly go from the legislature to the executive branch to the legislative branch. Then, even after the law is passed, the judiciary branch can declare the law unconstitutional. Thus, the government was a huge radical change because unlike the U.S. government, when Parliament declared a law, there were no checks and balances. The law was the law.
Secondly, I would like to disagree with Will Heintz. In Heintz’s blog response, he said, “To be radical the American Revolution had to have changed extremely the previous . . . political systems.” Well, the Americans did change the political system. First, America created the Articles of Confederation. Unfortunately, these articles gave too much power in the states and the legislature. Then, the American delegates created the Constitution. The Constitution created a more centralized government with checks and balances. But at the same time, a good amount of power was given to the states. Also, the states had internal checks and balances within their local governments. Accordingly, these checks and balances allowed the government to do basically nothing; and if the government did do something, it was usually because a great majority of the government agreed on the change that was made. Furthermore, Britain only had a Parliament. When Parliament created a law, that law was final. The law couldn’t be overridden because there was no other branch to override the law. Therefore, there were no checks and balances. Thus, America’s government was much different from Britain’s because of the many checks and balances that were included inside the government.
Mario Mottley
Period 2
I agree with JZ, and that the American Revolution was not a radical Revolution. Mr. Zucker had some good points but when one looks back it is obvious that the revolution was not radical, even though some small things did change overall things stayed the same. Instead of the king ruling the country with a Parliament made up of the aristocracy, the founding fathers implemented the Constitution which had congress, a house filled with officials elected by wealthy landowning white men, who were voted in by more wealthy white men. I also agree with David Dukesherer and say that the premiere difference between the British government was the absence of a monarch.
Malcolm Wallace
Period 3
I agree with Mr. Zucker in that the American revolution was radical. It was not as radical as the French Revolution, but it was still radical in the sense that the government went from being ruled by a king to having states govern themselves. The colonies were now governed separately and so there wasn't a great sense of national unity, especially since each state had its own formal currency. The right of the common man was greatly improved after the revolution. That was very radical in the sense that the lines between the social structures of society were not as great as they were before the war. People didn't show governors and other prominent members of society the same subservient respect that they did before the revolution. I agree with Mario Mottley when he said, "The Revolution was radical because the Americans instituted a completely different government once they became free of Britain." The new government that the Americans had was basically the opposite of the ine that the British had. For these reasons, i agree with Mr. Zucker in the point that the American Revolution was radical.
The American Revolution was as radical as it could be without failing, as we see with the French Revolution and then Napoleon taking over soon after. It started as simply one group feeling oppressed and then rebelling and gaining freedom. The only difference with previous revolutions was that it was influenced by Enlightenment thinking and thought that a central government was bad. Other revolutions had only thought of a particular monarch as bad. This way of challenging the given spread to other fronts, such as women's rights and the north condemning slavery. In the end however, most of the reforms that people wanted never passed. Simply considering all these ideas was radical. People can only had so much change at one time. This is why the French Revolution failed, people tried to reform everything at the same time and ended up with an unstable government and the only way they could become stable was to get an emperor, not very different than the thing they were fighting so hard to remove.
Mark Gieseker Period 3
Note-I forgot to put name and period on the last blog
I agree with Mr.Zucker on this one. The American Revolution was a radical one. This revolution led to the end of mercantilism and the beginning of Free markets.And there also a couple problems with JZ's arguments.
First of all, JZ implies that the Patriots were largely elites. That is not so. About 2/5ths of the population at the beginning of the conflict supported this revolution. Among the supporters were small farmers, middle class protestants, artisans, and middle class merchants. Almost all of the Freed blacks in New England supported the Revolution as well. Now thew leaders may have been elites, but they rallied people of all classes. John Adams was a lawyer for those men as well, these men stood up for liberty and law first and foremost, and those soldiers were justified and they deserve a fair trial, all the founders were for a fair trial for everyone. Sam Adams may have been a religious conservative as well, but he disliked the fact that the Anglican Church was the state Church, he believed that no one Church should dominate the political spectrum.
The Constitution wasn't the openly authority alone, the bill of rights protected the rights of the individual and the balance of powers made sure one no branch became dominate. And the Constitution was created so the federal government could get very little done and most things would be left up to the states.And while there may have been an aristocracy the people had new liberties they never had before that were protected by this aristocracy, like Free speech, Freedom of Religion, Free press, and Free Markets. And by the way, shouldn't the most talented run the country,weith mob rule the republic would never sustain. we aren't a Democracy but a republic, there is a difference.
The American Revolution was a radical one. Not in the way the French Revolution was, but in a positive way, it set the world on a positive course towards representative Governments. The French revolution was full of executions and silencing of opposing opinions, and it led to Napoleon taking power.
Stephen Ceccon
Period 2
This comment has been removed by the author.
I agree with JZ. Although the Americans did develop eventually develop a government that was unlike many European governments, the fouding fathers were not being radical. The reasons for revolution in the American's minds were completely justified and also the government learned from the British government's mistakes and established a government in which the people are way more involved.
The new liberties that came with being an American citizen were not radical. Despite walking side-by-side with the wealthy businessmen and leaders, America's white, wealthy male still basically ran society. But, unlike Europe, the people are given a right to vote. Also, the social status of women and slaves remained. Now, if slavery was abolished, one could say it was radical because no other country had put its foot down like that.
Christian Workman
Period 2
This comment has been removed by the author.
I will disagree with Sean Smith here. The notion that the French revolution brought on Social change is preposterous. It was radical, but radical in a dangerous way.. In the French revolution anarchy ensued and Anarchy led to a group of powerful men taking over, venting the anger of the poor and eliminating those who opposed them. It was a system very similar to Communism, everyone was equal, but everyone was poor, and the government had power over the people. And eventually the mob got angry again and then Napoleon took control. The American Revolution brought upon positive social changes like Individual liberty, free markets, and free speech/press.
Stephen Ceccon
Period 2
said...
I agree with JZ, in that the American Revolution was not a radical revolution. The upper class and wealthy were the leaders of the revolution compared to the French Revolution which was lead by the poor and lower class. Also, the means by which independence was won is much less radical in the American Revolution. The Americans fought an actual war, compared to the French who just lead riots and raid that left many leaders without their heads. When Mr. Zucker said that slavery was on its way, there were not immediate changes and the northern states even agreed to give back run away slaves, because they were thought of lost "property." Although there were changes in the colonial life, government structure, war tactics, and currency they were not as radical as some believe. The changes in everyday colonial was were that there was no people attacking you and also that the colonists were in charge of the government. The people who ran the government were in the same social class and status of people who ran the government in England, rich land-owning males. Therefore that is not much of a major change. However it is a change for the better because the people running it were to report to the people and actually lived on the same continent. Mr. Zucker also says that the women underwent drastic changes. This is not true there were not real changes. So what if a couple women rebelled and there views were heard, women were still not listened to and regarded as less or lower than males (at the time).
I agree with Justin Barnes in that the status and life of commoners was not changed much. There were few visible changes, such as currency, different leaders, and different trade taxes. However, there were changes that could not be seen that were very important, such as protection of rights, a government system that protected from a tyrant, and a system with a central government that had little power, thus spreading it out to the colonies preventing abuse and corruption.
Andrew Bonanno
Period 2
test
For me, I will have to agree with JZ and disagree with Mr. Zucker. I believe that the American Revolution was no where near a Radical Revolution because they were dealing the American revolutionaries, who were carried by the wealthy elite. These elite consisted of merchants, lawyers, bankers and land owners. They were in fear of a democratic mob. Also, JZ points out that what the importance was of the federal government that was being implemented. “When the Articles of Confederation began to show weaknesses, the leaders of the revolution formed a national constitution that placed power in a strong federal government.” This led to the government creating its own currency and that caused inflation in the economy and with trade partners. For example, Hamilton developed a natural aristocracy, where he thought people are born to lead and that they will eventually rise up and take control.
I am going to have to agree with Grant Ukropina and Sean Fitzgerald. Both mentioned that the Revolution was not radical and that it just changed some parts of life but it left room for growth. Sean mentions how men like Hamilton were born to lead and that they would eventually rise up and take over. Grant mentions the guerilla warfare tactics that helped put a huge impact on the British. In the end, I think that all these changed occurring should not be considered radical just different.
Garrett Cooper
Period 1
I agree with Mr. Zucker in that the American revolution was a radical event. It changed the way people saw their government in America and instead of having the common people being ruled by the leader it was supposed to be the leader ruling for the people. The idea that everyone had basic individual rights and could be represented in government was a new idea in Europe that hadn't been seen since the time of the romans. Though many remnants of their prior English rule remained the idea that the people should be represented and the government be held accountable for was the radical idea that soon spread out over the world giving the French the idea of their revolution. Many things were changing in the volatile times after the revolution and though a few things remained the same the new ideas greatly changed how the country would develop in the future. In this time the radical idea of revolution against a government on the grounds of rights was unheard of and the revolution was the breeding ground for many fledging ideas that eventually become the basis of or idea of how government should be today.
I would disagree with Justin Barnes when he says that the american revolution was not radical because people did not receive any more rights and women always challenging society. First of all women had never been given rights nor had they ever had the chance to ask with the possibility that it would be given. True they were not given any additional rights in the constitution but they asked which in itself was radical. They also started to gain more responsibilities such as running farms while their husbands were at war and keeping charge for the family finances. This was radical compared to the European standards which they rebelled against. When justin says that rich white males where still the only people able to vote this is true but that was not what was radical about it. The point was that they could vote for the first time to elect people into a government that was accountable to them and worked for them rather than good of the empire which lead to tyranny. the American Revolution was truly a radical time in history.
ward Forthmann
Period 1
"james" that posted at 5:31PM yesterday was JD Blank Period 3
Mr. Zucker on this one. JZ says that one reason that the revolution was not radical was because many of the social norms stayed the same, but that is not to say that people spoke openly opposing these norms. It takes a lot of guts to stand up in public and challenge norms such as government, women's rights, and slavery. I believe that one cannot solely base the radicalness of an event on the outcome. I think that attempts of what wanted to be done needs to come into play. Also, JZ argues that the leaders of the revolution were wealthy merchanst who feared democracy. This can not be a reason for why the revolution was not radical because the end result of the revolution was a more democratic government. Therefore, you cant simply base the radicalness of the revolution on the end results, but also on the efforts and ideas.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It is not fair to compare the American and French Revolutions because they were two very different revolutions. The American Revolution was between a mother country and one of her colonies. The French Revolution was an internal restructuring of a nation's government by the people of that nation. With this said, I would have to agree with Mr. Zucker. The American Revolution was a very radical revolution of the time.
The notion of a colony breaking away and starting a brand new nation could hardly be fathomed and was completely unheard of during this time. Some minor rebellions had happened in the past with several countries and their colonies; however, the mother countries always managed to crush the rebellers with great ease. This was the first really serious colonial rebellion.
The Americans won their independence, and they became and still are the only country to form a democracy that didn't collapse and lead into complete anarchy. Though some of the social issues of the time such as women's rights and slavery failed to be addressed successfully, the resulting government that was formed was quite radical and ingenious for the time. The British form of government was used for some inspiration, but many new innovative ideas were implemented, too. I can acknowledge that the same type of people who made the laws in England were the same type of men who made the laws in America, but what type of people formed the laws should not be what makes a revolution radical. The ideas are what make a revolution radical, and the American concept of democracy was radical. The battle for independence in the "New World" was just the inspiration the French needed to conceive their own ideas of independence. The American Revolution was radical, and it changed the world forever.
Clay Busia
Period 3
Although I have found convincing points in the arguments of both JZ and Mr. Zucker, I must lend my support to Mr. Zucker on this issue. I, too, feel that the American Revolution was a radical event during its time. With this said, I have to disagree with Sean Smith's approval of JZ's justification. While the French might have experienced a complete upheaval of the national government in a bloody coup d'état in its revolution, this should not be made into the standard for all "radical" revolutions to meet in order to reach "radical" status. JZ may be correct in saying that the social structure of American society did not transform into something completely different from that of the one existing before the revolution, but this does not make or break the fact that the American Revolution was radical or not. What was revolutionary about the American Revolution was the emerging concept of the importance of the individual. This alone was radical during a time in which the good of a nation always came before the individual rights of its citizens. Whoever says that a "radical" revolution can only be accomplished through such means as the complete destruction of a nation's leaders should re-evaluate his or her opinion after looking at the context of such events as the American (and very "radical" in my book) Revolution.
Cody Busia, Period 3
I'm going to have to agree with Mr. Zucker on this topic that the revolution in America was a radical revolution. First, the fact that the government was created to protect and cater to the wants of the population was completely unheard of at the time, and paved the way for other revolutions such as the French Revolution. Also, the revolution eventually led to equal rights for all people in the United States, although the effect was not immediate. The Bill of Rights and the Constitution, as well as the use of checks and balances in the government just go to show the innovative, and radical ideas of the founding fathers of America. Lastly, I agree with Mezzatesta that the fact that the American government was not headed by a king or despot, made it the most revolutionary of its time.
James Sherman
Period 2
I have a really good reason why this is late.
I am going to have to actually agree with Mr. Zucker's points on this one. The AMerican Revolution was actually an xtremely radical revolution in its perspectives. At the onset of the war, before any of the battles actually started, the sons of liberty vandalized the countryside, burning the homes of tax collectors and stamp distributors (if thats not radical, i dont know what is). In addition, the lifestyls of the American males and women, changed drastically and diviated away from that of any country in the world. The notion Mr. Zucker brings up about how leaders and common folk walk around together, and women are not stuck in the house is a major point that only a radical revlution can bring about.
I agree with Marios point on the basis that the American government also established a government unknown to the world. And the system in which they did this was another radical idea. Having multiple leaders come to a place and make decisions for the country was new idea the world has seen. Furthermore, the practice of checks and palances put on the govenment system was another radical idea that made the American colonies a new and idfferent place than from the rest of the world.
BRian Ulmer
Period 3
I agree with JZ because although some matters of social conduct and behavior were changed after the revolution, the only major change that lasted was the form of government in charge of the colonies. Sure, at first the Articles of Confederation gave more power to the individual person and states, but the Articles didn't last to long and, as we all know, were quickly thrown out completly. To prove my point lets look at the new form of government under the constitution. First of all it was written up and created by members of the elite, and wealthy class who were highly educated and far from the average farmer who existed in the US back in those days. Secondly, instead of having people tax them from across the Atlantic Ocean, they now had people tax them from across the states. The main cataylst for the revolution was still a big part of the United States. One may say that being taxed isn't as big a deal becasue people could now choose the people who will represent them and tax and inforce laws on them. This would be true if by people you mean land owning white males. This heavy restriction on who gets to vote obviously does not give everyone in the states a voice in who does tax and create laws for them. In response to the number of Mr. Zucker supporters who state that allowing only the white male land owners a right to vote was better then no one at all, it may be an imporvement but it doesn't really abide to the protection of the natural rights of ALL as stated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. To protect the equal rights of all means to protect the rights of every person despite their gender, race, or creed. The fact that only a small section of people in the country were allowed to vote means that the rights of all were not protected.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Though I consider the word “radical” a somewhat problematic, I agree with Mr. Zucker that the Revolution was a truly radical departure from the mechanisms that had previously been in place. The American Revolution brought with it several changes like a new governmental focus on protection of rights, governmental accountability, and the elimination of monarchial rule over the colonies. Though the society as a whole remained the same (women and slaves continued to marginalized), the changes in the government were a clear departure from the norms of the time. The masses could now have a chance at effecting change through the House of Representatives, and the system of checks and balances ensured that there rights and freedoms would be secured. Ward got it right when he said, “It changed the way people saw their government in America and instead of having the common people being ruled by the leader it was supposed to be the leader ruling for the people.” Though the structural make-up of society remained the same and an elite class still existed, the shift in the structure of the ruling class was revolutionary in itself; the Americans put into action the words of theorists and vested control in the people. In breaking away from a system that, despite its flaws with representation, functioned fairly well in preserving that colonists’ well being, the revolutionaries shifted the course of American history and laid down a framework of independence and basic rights. Citizens were no longer expected to serve a king, but rather themselves under a government that they had influence on. The importance of the individual was the radical shift in mindset that accompanied this revolution. The belief that a revolution can only be “radical” if accompanied by a bloody upheaval and the deaths of a nation’s leaders is flawed since it does not take into account the less visible actions that shape societies.
Nick Donlan
Period 1
I’m going to have to agree with Mr. Zucker on this one. The American Revolution was indeed radical due to the ideas and how it was carried out. The notion of having a hierarchy with a monarch at the head was replaced by the idea that the government had to serve the people. This idea was the basis for the American Revolution and was a veryy radical idea especially in a time when most governments in “civilized” Europe were based on a hierarchical system with a royal family. By replacing this idea, they were in essence destroying the basis of European government. They replaced it instead with the notion that all men (albeit white men with property) are all equal and deserve to be treated with respect by their leaders and government. Being able to walk side by side with your leader may not seem like a radical, physical change; however, it is the idea that is represented in this action that is important. The American Revolution emphasized the fact that the government only held power to protect and serve the people which was completely and entirely revolutionary in the eyes of the world at the time. The ideas that the American Revolution stood for were revolutionary even if they were not carried out as dramatically and exaggeratedly as the French.
This leads to me having to agree with david dukesherer because they did establish ideas that were very different from the English institutions. They pursued direct representation by having the government be serving them instead of the virtual representation that the British had.
Joseph Kim
Period 3
This comment has been removed by the author.
test
Post a Comment
<< Home