More handpicked essays just for you.
American revolution social political
Brief essay on the american revolution
American revolution social political
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
An Analysis About the Interpretations of the Document “The Costs of Revolution” Created Between American Colonists in Support of the American Revolution and Those Not in Support. “Where is the money to come from which will defray this enormous annual expense of three million sterling, and all those other debts.” Charles Inglis questions his audience in regards to paying for a revolution against Britain. Imagine you are a colonist one year after the revolution against Britain has begun. Would you agree or disagree with loyalist Inglis? If you were in support of a revolution you would most likely disagree and be enraged with Inglis’ statement, however if you did not want a revolution you would agree with Inglis because you want to do anything …show more content…
It is this hyperbolic allusion that initiates the tone of hopelessness. Inglis conveys there is no way to pay off the debt a war would cost “unless the author of Common Sense, or some other ingenious projector can discover the Philosopher’s Stone” (1). Common Sense is a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine in 1776 that stresses the need for rebellion now; the Philosopher’s Stone is a topic under the study of alchemy that is said to be man’s attempt to discover the secret of the universe and turn lead into gold, which has been proven impossible. During the mid 1700’s the idea of alchemy was considered an unpractical science and therefore useless to society; Inglis’ allusion to the Philosopher’s Stone is a hyperbolic reference that expresses how impossible paying off the debt from a war would be because of how eccentric the idea of the Stone is. He then denotes to authors and people who want a rebellion as “ingenious.” In this reference he ties these type of people in with his hyperbolic allusion to convey that even though these writers are geniuses, not even they can find a way to pay off the
In order to refocus the colonists, Inglis discredited Paine and his pamphlet, Common Sense, writing that, “…[Paine] gives vent to his own private resentment and ambition, and recommends a scheme which must infallibly prove ruinous.” Inglis portrayed Paine as a man expressing personal complaints. Inglis did not give Paine any credit for being patriotic. Instead, he described Paine as having “…a rage that knows no limits…” and
Gary B. Nash argues that the American Revolution portrayed “radicalism” in the sense on how the American colonies and its protesters wanted to accommodate their own government. Generally what Gary B. Nash is trying to inform the reader is to discuss the different conditions made by the real people who were actually fighting for their freedom. In his argument he makes it clear that throughout the revolution people showed “radicalism” in the result of extreme riots against the Stamp Act merchants, but as well against the British policies that were implemented. He discusses the urgency of the Americans when it came to declaring their issues against the British on how many slaves became militants and went up against their masters in the fight for a proclamation to free themselves from slavery. But he slowly emerges into the argument on how colonists felt under the
His writing makes a reader doubt the veracity of the American Revolution and the right of the colonies to fight for independence. Personally, my perspective changed and I no longer saw England as some tyrant power who tried to strip the colonies of their rights and taxed them unjustly. I began to see how England’s actions were justified and my patriotism took a blow. England clearly had a right to tax, as is evidenced by the charter and especially because the taxes were for expenses racked up for the protection of the colonies in the French and Indian War. Overall, Wesley makes a very convincing argument that the colonies are acting irrationally and unreasonably, which makes you wonder whether one should be proud of America’s “honorable” fight for
...no loyalty to the Crown now, in future conflicts, the colonists may turn against us and become our enemy. Radical action must be taken in order to regulate their behavior. They must recognize the royal authority.
It was said, and is very true, that the British gave a lot to the colonists and we see such helpings as in the French and Indian war. The British gave up a lot of troops and money and numerous others in fighting that war, that the least that the colonist could do is to pay the taxes. Well they do have a good right to say that since they were the contributing factor in the colonists being safe from the French and Indians. The people, in the end should go about daily lives and pay the normal taxes, but you do have to draw the line somewhere. (DCT 1)
Gordon Wood’s Radicalism of the American Revolution is a book that extensively covers the origin and ideas preceding the American Revolution. Wood’s account of the Revolution goes beyond the history and timeline of the war and offers a new encompassing look inside the social ideology and economic forces of the war. Wood explains in his book that America went through a two-stage progression to break away from the Monarchical rule of the English. He believes the pioneering revolutionaries were rooted in the belief of an American Republic. However, it was the radical acceptance of democracy that was the final step toward independence. The transformation between becoming a Republic, to ultimately becoming a democracy, is where Wood’s evaluation of the revolution differs from other historians. He contributes such a transformation to the social and economic factors that faced the colonists. While Gordon Wood creates a persuasive argument in his book, he does however neglect to consider other contributing factors of the revolution. It is these neglected factors that provide opportunity for criticism of his book.
Some say that the Revolution was destined to happen ever since Settlers set foot on this continent, others argue that it would not have happened if it weren't for a set of issues that finally drove the colonists to revolt. Ultimately, Britain lost control in 1765 when they gave in to the Stamp Act Congress’s boycotts against parliamentary taxation and gave them the idea that they had the power to run a country. To a lesser degree, Salutary Neglect led to the conception of a legacy of colonial religious and political ideals which set in motion an eminent conflict. During this period, England “forgot” about the colonies and gave them colonists a taste of independence and suspicions of individual political theories. Through Parliament's ruthless taxation without representation and a near opposite religious and political mindset, Britain and the colonists were heaved into a revolutionary war.
“Common sense will tell us, that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all others, the most improper to defend us.” Such words scribed by the Revolutionary radical Thomas Paine epitomized the drive behind the American Revolution of the 18th century. For nearly two hundred years, the citizens of the American Colonies had been fastened securely to the wrist of the mother country, England. They had tolerated the tyrannous rule, but not without the simmer of rebellious thoughts. As England piled tax after tax onto their colonies, thoughts of revolution and revolt sprung up in the minds of the colonists and brewed there, waiting for a catalyst to drive them into action. The catalyst ignited on January 10th, 1776 when Thomas Paine published his fiery pamphlet ‘Common Sense’. The 48-page pamphlet presented before the colonists a vision for independence that had never been conceived before. It radically altered the course of the Revolution and would later find itself molding the foundation of America’s government indefinitely.
This conclusion seemed to contradict every presumption about Great Britain’s imperial power. In all other conflicts, the British seemed to win decisively but the problem in the American Revolution lies with Britain underestimating the colonists. The British were blind to America’s symbolic presence as an end to an imperial structure. France and Spain aided the colonists in hopes of defeating the tyrannical empire. Britain underestimated George Washington and the Continental Army. Over time, the colonial militias trained in the European fashion and transformed into a challenging force. Ultimately, the most distinctive miscalculation of the British was the perseverance of the colonists and their fight for freedom. While Britain was fighting for control over yet another revenue source, America was fighting for independence and principle. The difference between the motivations was the predominant factor in deciding the
“If we measure the radicalism of revolutions by the degree of social misery or economic deprivation suffered, or by the number of people killed or manor houses burned, then this conventional emphasis on the conservatism of the American Revolution becomes true enough. B...
In conclusion, the changes in the colonies were so significant that they seemed to create a completely different country. This was especially true with the ideas of an economic system, a common lifestyle, and religious diversity. The changes they made and became accustomed to, also began to change their political beliefs. This is what ultimately led to the war that people today are so accustomed to calling “the American Revolution”. According to John Addams, however, “The war? That was no part of the Revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. The Revolution was in the minds of the people… years before a drop of blood was shed at Lexington.”
According to Carl N. Degler, the entire Revolution should be viewed as a conservative change. In “A New Kind of Revolution,” Degler talked about how the new actions taken place by the English had help structure and shape the colonial government. Not only did the colonies lack the affection of their motherland, Britain, they were also taxed unfairly. On the other hand, “The Radicalism of the American Revolution,” by Gordon S. Wood talks about how the American Revolution was a radical movement. His thesis covered how the country was transitioning from monarchy to republic, and now, democracy. The framers wanted to create a free nation where no single person rule. As well as, the people of the nation having the ultimate say so.
middle of paper ... ... You don’t have a revolution in which you love your enemy, and you don’t have a revolution in which you are begging the system of exploitation to integrate you into it. Revolutions overturn the systems. Revolutions destroy the systems.”
Overall, the American Revolution had been considered justified in terms of freedom and prosperity. Colonists from the thirteen colonies have shown extraordinary ability to unite under a familiar cause and work together. Through the countries journey to independence, the colonists have gone through moral crisis that perseverance has allowed them to endure the suffering of the continuous acts of Britain. The subject of relativity of the Patriots, Non-landowning free men and Loyalists had been a common goal to support or abolish the rule of Britain. The justification of the American Revolution could not have been possible without the main philosophers of the United States: Locke, Rousseau and Hobbes.
In concern to the American Revolution, there are two sides debating its primary cause. One set of historians believe the cause to be ideals and principles. The other set of historians and scholars credit economic and social interests as the primary cause of the Revolutionary War. Historians Jesse Lemisch and Dirk Hoerder used the mobs in colonial cities as evidence of the social concerns of Americans at that time. Another Historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger argued in a 1917 study “that it was the colonial merchants who were chiefly responsible for arousing American resistance to the British; and that although they spoke of principles and ideals, their real motives were economic self-interest: freedom from the restrictive policies of British mercantilism.” This argument is very concrete and is supported by the different legislation that the British Parliament passed after the Seven Years’ War. In fact, an act was passed in 1764 by the Parliament that was instrumental in specifically angering the merchants that played a major role in leading the Americans to independence. That piece of legislation was the Sugar Act which placed a tax on sugar being brought into the colonies. This tax was a significantly less than the one that was logged in the book previously; however, that tax had been ignored for years. The initial response of the merchants to this piece of legislation was anger because this new law cut off their highly profitable smuggling organizations which greatly affected their earnings. Soon after tha...