![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
causticusMy short answer is: Yes it was, but not in the way most of us today typically understand what the word "revolution" entails. When many of us think "revolution" we think of a sudden bloody series of events that drastically changes the social structure and governing institutions of whatever state these events take place in; that, or the revolution-in-question simply involves a violent, sudden circulation of ruling elites.
I think it's rather obvious though that the so-called "American Revolution" was not a social or ideological revolution; it certainly wasn't anything like the French Revolution! I'd go so far as so say that the term revolution here is almost a misnomer. When compared to other wars and conflicts, the war that birthed the United States was more a war of secession (from the British Empire); of course we don't call it that because that term has taken on some rather icky connotations.
So what did change? Nearly all the preexisting social mores, customs, and institutions (sans the British control) of the American colonies stayed more or less intact after the war, plus the addition of the new US constitution and government organs. I would say that the American Revolution was simply a logical next step of a chain of events that had been set into motion a long time prior.
The purveyors of the current fashionable-but-revisionistic narrative are in the habit of brandishing claims like: (1) the American revolutionaries had a primary aim of throwing off the yoke of monarchy, (2) and that itself was such a revolutionary act for its time! Both of these are false claims. Many of the founders had no real ideological opposition to the concept of Monarchy; many in fact were willing to offer George Washington the crown! (admittedly though this would have broken the age-old formula of kingly rule by divine right, but I digress). And on yeeting monarchy itself? Been there, done that! The act of regicide and the replacement of monarchy with something else had already been field tested during the English Civil War, and the English crown was never quite the same after that. On top of that, the firmly-restored English monarchy was permanently de-fanged in the aftermath of the so-called "Glorious" Revolution of 1688. From then on, it was the growing influence of the merchant and artisan classes that came to dominate politics in Britain and its empire.
So what really happened was that the American colonies seceded from an imperial parliament, and one that was increasingly representing the interests of those aforementioned classes at the expense of the old aristocracy. What the US accomplished was simply continuation of events that had already been going on in Great Britain and abroad for about 150 years. But of course, history is always told by the victors. The great lies I mention above are deployed to paper over the fact that those convenient strawman antagonists of "enlightenment" liberalism, monarchy and aristocracy, had already been on the outs by the time the "American Revolution" happened. The merchants, yeoman farmers, lawyers, and artisans had been gaining political power for quite some time in the West, and the defeat of the British in America just made that official in one particular place.
Now what does make the American Revolution truly revolutionary is that it demonstrated that it was indeed possible to have an enduring state based on a political formula other than divine right rule (swapping this out for a piece of paper serving as sovereign), and of course it inspired peoples all over the rest of the Western world to rise up against the the old regimes.
I think it's rather obvious though that the so-called "American Revolution" was not a social or ideological revolution; it certainly wasn't anything like the French Revolution! I'd go so far as so say that the term revolution here is almost a misnomer. When compared to other wars and conflicts, the war that birthed the United States was more a war of secession (from the British Empire); of course we don't call it that because that term has taken on some rather icky connotations.
So what did change? Nearly all the preexisting social mores, customs, and institutions (sans the British control) of the American colonies stayed more or less intact after the war, plus the addition of the new US constitution and government organs. I would say that the American Revolution was simply a logical next step of a chain of events that had been set into motion a long time prior.
The purveyors of the current fashionable-but-revisionistic narrative are in the habit of brandishing claims like: (1) the American revolutionaries had a primary aim of throwing off the yoke of monarchy, (2) and that itself was such a revolutionary act for its time! Both of these are false claims. Many of the founders had no real ideological opposition to the concept of Monarchy; many in fact were willing to offer George Washington the crown! (admittedly though this would have broken the age-old formula of kingly rule by divine right, but I digress). And on yeeting monarchy itself? Been there, done that! The act of regicide and the replacement of monarchy with something else had already been field tested during the English Civil War, and the English crown was never quite the same after that. On top of that, the firmly-restored English monarchy was permanently de-fanged in the aftermath of the so-called "Glorious" Revolution of 1688. From then on, it was the growing influence of the merchant and artisan classes that came to dominate politics in Britain and its empire.
So what really happened was that the American colonies seceded from an imperial parliament, and one that was increasingly representing the interests of those aforementioned classes at the expense of the old aristocracy. What the US accomplished was simply continuation of events that had already been going on in Great Britain and abroad for about 150 years. But of course, history is always told by the victors. The great lies I mention above are deployed to paper over the fact that those convenient strawman antagonists of "enlightenment" liberalism, monarchy and aristocracy, had already been on the outs by the time the "American Revolution" happened. The merchants, yeoman farmers, lawyers, and artisans had been gaining political power for quite some time in the West, and the defeat of the British in America just made that official in one particular place.
Now what does make the American Revolution truly revolutionary is that it demonstrated that it was indeed possible to have an enduring state based on a political formula other than divine right rule (swapping this out for a piece of paper serving as sovereign), and of course it inspired peoples all over the rest of the Western world to rise up against the the old regimes.
(no subject)
Date: 2024-09-03 06:05 pm (UTC)Cheers,
Jeff
(no subject)
Date: 2024-09-04 12:42 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2024-09-04 01:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2024-09-03 09:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2024-09-04 12:36 am (UTC)But yeah, I agree that the war itself wasn't revolutionary.